To Harper Court Sale homepage. This contains current information and links to many document and background pages.
Early History of Harper Court.

Harper Court: RFQ/RFP issuance announcement and link to the complete document:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV
_SessionID=@@@@1492577414.1229027771@@@@&BV_EngineID=
ccceadeflmmdgkkcefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=537022835&contenTypeName
=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Planning+And+Development%2F
Requests+for+Proposals%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName
=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886353

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF INITIAL RESPONSE TO RFP CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO JANUARY 26 2009 DUE TO THE MLK HOLIDAY AND EVENTS.

From: Robert Wolf <rwolf@cityofchicago.org>
To: Robert Wolf <rwolf@cityofchicago.org>
Cc: James Wilson <jwilson@cityofchicago.org>; smc1@uchicago.edu
Sent: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:33 am
Subject: Rare Development Opportunity in Chicago's Hyde Park

The City of Chicago and the University of Chicago offer their combined land
holdings in the center of Hyde Park's commercial district for mixed-use
development. This rare assemblage offers developers a unique opportunity to
creatively reshape a nearly three acre site into a cohesive, active neighborhood
core. The property is located at the corner of 53rd Street and Lake Park
Avenue, blocks from the university campus, close to Lake Michigan and Lake Shore
Drive, and adjacent to a commuter rail station. The land holdings include
Harper Court, a four-building retail center constructed in the 1960s, and an
adjacent public parking lot.

The property is offered for sale at the target purchase price of $7,745,000 or
approximately $62 per square foot of land. (This is the price of the leased fee
interest because one of the four Harper Court buildings remains under lease). A
long-term ground lease may also be considered.

The request for proposals is divided into two parts. The first submission will
establish the qualifications of the development team, its financial capacity,
its experience with similar developments, and the conformance of its
redevelopment concept to the goals and objectives of the RFP. In the second
part, a short-list of teams will be invited to submit a detailed development
proposal.

The city and university will host a pre-bid conference at 9:00 a.m. on December
17th at the United Church of Hyde Park, 1448 W. 53rd Street. Please RSVP to
either James Wilson, City of Chicago project manager at jwilson@cityofchicago.org
or 312-744-2379 or Susan Campbell, Assistant Vice President of the University of
Chicago at smc1@uchicago.edu or 773-702-4065.

Below is a link to the RFP document. Hard copies of the RFP will be available
at the pre-bid conference. If you will download the document and do not attend
the pre-bid conference, it is important to register with either of the above
parties to make sure that you are included in all subsequent communications.

To download the RFP go to: (This is in the City of Chicago- Department of Planning and
Development website, from http://www.cityofchicago.org.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV
_SessionID=@@@@1492577414.1229027771@@@@&BV_EngineID=
ccceadeflmmdgkkcefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=537022835&contenTypeName
=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Planning+And+Development%2F
Requests+for+Proposals%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName
=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886353


Thank you for your interest.

The University of Chicago and the City of Chicago in collaboration with the 4th Ward alderman have partnered for the redevelopment of the Harper Court area in the Hyde Park community. The site includes a number of contiguous properties bounded roughly by Lake Park Avenue, 53rd Street, Harper Avenue, and 52nd Street, which include parcels currently owned by the University of Chicago and the City of Chicago. This rare assemblage of parcels amounts to a project area of approximately 2.94 acresand provides developers with a unique opportunity to creatively reshape this area into a cohesive, active neighborhood core.

KEY TARGET DATES:

* RFQ/RFP Issue: December 8, 2008
* Pre-Proposal Meeting & Site Tour: December 17, 2008
* RFQ Due Date: January 19, 2009 [EXTENDED TO JANUARY 26]
* Proposal Review & Shortlist Selection: February 16, 2009
* RFP Due Date: May 11, 2009
* Owners' Evaluation and Developer Discussions/Refinements: May/July 2009
* Community Presentation of Developers' Proposal: July/August 2009 [deleted and replaced by selectee presentation to community c. Sept. or later]
* Owners' Developer Selection Process: August/Sept 2009
* Execution of Purchase/Lease Redevelopment Agreement: End of 2009


ELEMENTS (Available in the site- These links to documents in PDF:

Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals (881 KB)
[Summary of Offerings] [Terms] [Framework and Objectives] [Requirements] [Selection]

Aerial Neighborhood Map (845 KB) [See from the RFP site. Significant in that it shows structure coverage and indicates heights via shadowing.]

Aerial Site Map (108 KB) [See from the RFP site. Plain outline.]

Neighborhood Base Map (496 KB) [See from the RFP site.]

Neighborhood Context Diagram (713 KB) [See from RFP site. This segments the neighborhood. Harper Court is part of Heart of Hyde Park and 53rd Corridor, which is in the east-southeast sector designated Hyde Park and next to East Hyde Park.]

Neighborhood Initiatives Diagram (254 KB) [See in RFP site. Cited are Village Center, BP, MacDonald's, Park 52-Checkerboard, CVS Pharmacy, Harper Theater, 53rd streetscape and improvements, Borders, 53rd Cornell, Metra-Lake Park improvements, Hyde Park Bank improvements.]

Plat of Survey (420 KB) [See from RFP site]

Additional Neighborhood Information (9 KB)

53rd Street TIF District Overview (327 KB) [See in TIFormation page (top document, text summary)

Harper Court RFP Detailed Ordinance Descriptions (7 KB) [Exh. D]

Planned Development No. 38 Document (567 KB) [Imaged, including maps- should be viewed from the RFP site link. Conditions include a maximum coverage of 35%, 20 foot between buildings and other low density requirements such as height such that at least amendment will be required for new development even though recommended FAR for the new project is 2.5-5.]

Phase I Environmental Assessment (489 KB)

2008 53rd Street Vision Workshop Report (2532 KB) [*] View complete pdf from the main RFF site or text (Rev. May 2008 and not including the May or Nov. 15 2008 workshops) or visit http://www.vision35.org/. View text in sep. page.

2008 Harper Court Survey Summary (411 KB) [*]- In HarperReport.pdf page

Environmental Goals (17 KB) [Exh. J]

[* These can be found either (1) in-text in the linked site or (2) in this site (hydepark.org) in other formats or summaries by returning to Harper Court home. See also TIF maps, Maps.]

Materials that would open in site up so far (download is very slow):

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS &
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Purchase or Lease and Redevelopment of the
HARPER COURT AREA
Hyde Park Neighborhood, Chicago IL [MAPS, drawings, photos incl. in original]

City Of Chicago
Department of Planning and Development (DPD)
&
The University of Chicago
December 8, 2008
Managed and administered by The City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development
with assistance from The Chicago Consultants Studio, Inc.
GENERAL INVITATION
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP)
2
For Purchase or Lease and Redevelopment of the Property including Harper Court
Properties and the City Parking Lot in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, IL

The City of Chicago and the University of Chicago (hereto referred to as “Owners”)
request the submission of qualifications and proposals from developers to purchase or
lease and redevelop the property known as Harper Court and the adjoining Parking Lot
along Lake Park Ave. The Owners have designated James Wilson of The City of
Chicago, Department of Planning and Development* (hereto referred to as “Owners’
Agent”) to administer and manage this RFP on all issues of procurement and
procedure. Assisting the Owners will be Tim Brangle of The Chicago Consultants
Studio available for technical questions and/or clarifications to the RFP document and
coordinating the pre-proposal meeting.

The Owners’ desire to sell or lease this prime property in Hyde Park to a qualified
developer to redevelop the property as a high quality mixed-use project with potential
retail, residential, entertainment and/or related neighborhood uses that would enhance
the unique nature and character of Hyde Park and serve as an amenity for the
neighborhood, the University, and the mid-south communities.

The RFQ/RFP document is available electronically on the City of Chicago website,
www.cityofchicago.org, Planning and Development page, under Request for
Proposals. A hardcopy of RFQ/RFP document is available for pickup at both:

The City of Chicago
Department of Planning and Development
121 N. LaSalle St, Room 1006
Chicago, IL 60602
City of Chicago

4th Ward Alderman’s Office
4659 Cottage Grove, Suite 203
Chicago, IL 60653

Additional copies of the RFQ/RFP may be requested by contacting the Owners’ Agent
at jwilson@cityofchicago.org. In order to ensure that you are included in the list of
interested parties, Developers will be asked for contact information when picking up a
copy of the RFP document.

All Developers are responsible for obtaining all RFQ/RFP materials. If a Developer
chooses to download and print the document, the Developer must contact the City of
Chicago, Department of Planning and Development by either: faxing a legible copy of
Developers business card with email address, referencing the Harper Court RFQ/RFQ
to (312) 744-5826, or by emailing James Wilson at jwilson@cityofchicago.org to register
Developer’s company as an RFQ/RFP document holder, which will enable any future
clarifications, updates and/or addenda to be sent to Developer. Note that Developers
who choose to download the RFQ/RFP solicitation will be responsible for checking the
aforementioned web site for clarifications and/or addenda. Failure to obtain
clarifications and/or addenda from the website shall not relieve developers from being
bound by any additional terms and conditions in the clarifications and/or addenda.

A pre-proposal meeting and site tour is tentatively scheduled for 9am on December 17,
2008 at the United Church of Hyde Park. This meeting is for qualified developers who
intend to submit a proposal and will require pre-registration by notifying the Owners’
Agent in advance via the contact information noted above. Attendance is not
mandatory but is strongly encouraged as this is the key opportunity to raise questions
regarding the RFQ/RFP and tour the site. A confirmation notice for this meeting will be
sent to all registered developers.

After the date of the pre-proposal meeting, additional questions can be addressed to the
James Wilson at jwilson@cityofchicago.org or Tim Brangle at
ccs@ccstudioinc.com. The Owners’ response will be returned by e-mail to all parties
that have expressed interest in the RFQ/RFP. Questions will be taken by phone only
for those parties that do not have access to e-mail. Responses to phoned-in questions
will be distributed to the other interested parties by e-mail (or by regular mail for those
without e-mail access).

Developers will be responsible for delivering proposals on or before the due dates listed
in this document. Late responses will not be accepted.

This is a public RFQ/RFP intended for prospective developers’ limited use in
considering whether to submit a development proposal and purchase or lease offer. In
accepting this RFQ/RFP, the prospective developers agree not to copy or distribute any
of the materials to others without the express written consent of the Owners, except for
developer’s employees, legal counsel or third party advisors retained to assist in the
developer’s evaluation of the project or prospective tenants/partners who must agree to
maintain the confidentiality of the materials.

* NOTE: Effective January 1, 2009, the City of Chicago Department of Planning and
Development will be changed to the Department of Community Development (DCD)

[photos and aereal views]

KEY TARGET DATES:
• RFQ/RFP Issue December 8, 2008
• Pre-Proposal Meeting & Site Tour December 17, 2008
• RFQ Due Date January 19, 2009
• Proposal Review & Shortlist Selection February 16, 2009
• RFP Due Date May 11, 2009
• Owners’ Evaluation and Developer Discussions/Refinements May/July 2009
• Community Presentation of Developers’ Proposal July/August 2009 [deleted and replaced by selectee presentation to community c. Sept. or later]
• Owners’ Developer Selection Process August/Sept 2009
• Execution of Purchase/Lease Redevelopment Agreement End

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY OF THE OFFERING
A. Owners’ Objectives
B. Property Summary
C. Transaction Timing
D. Transaction Structure
E. Due Diligence/Property Inspection
F. Review and Evaluation of Proposals
II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Confidentiality
B. Real Estate Brokers
C. As-Is Offering
D. Good Faith Deposit
E. Contract Terms
F. Owners’ Reservations
G. Owners’ Investment and Purchase/Lease Price Considerations
III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A. Overview
B. Ownership
C. Site Description and Specifications
D. Existing Conditions and Site Preparation
E. Environmental and Soil Conditions
F. Neighborhood Context
G. Vehicular Access and Public Transportation
H. Public Infrastructure
I. Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances
J. TIF Redevelopment Project Area
IV. THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
A. Development Goals & Objectives
B. Urban Design Objectives
C. Program and Use Guidelines
D. Architectural Objectives
E. Environmental Goals
F. Construction Requirements
V. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Pre-Submittal Conference and Tour
B. Two-Part Submission Process
C. Good Faith Deposit
D. Submittal Format
E. Part One-RFQ Submittal Contents
F. Part Two-RFP Submittal Contents
G. Submittal Address and Deadline
7
VI. DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Redevelopment Agreement
B. Development Approvals
C. Community Planning Process
D. MWBE Commitment and Affordable Housing Requirement
VII. SELECTION PROCESS
A. Evaluation and Approval
B. RFQ Selection Criteria
C. RFP Selection Criteria
D. Selection Process and Schedule
VIII. APPENDIX *
Exhibit A: Site Maps and Plans
Exhibit B: Description of Development Area and Context
Exhibit C: 53rd Street TIF District Information
Exhibit D: City of Chicago Ordinance Summary
Exhibit E: Existing Site/Zoning Information
Exhibit F: Phase I Environmental Summary– Harper Court Properties
Exhibit G: Office of Underground Coordination Summary
Exhibit H: Hyde Park Planning Studies
Exhibit I: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Exhibit J: Environmental Requirements
Exhibit K: Confidentiality Agreement
* NOTE--Appendix materials are available by disk through the City of Chicago Department of
Planning and Development or by download at the City of Chicago, Department of Planning and
Development website.
8

I. SUMMARY OF OFFERING

A. Owners’ Objectives
The University of Chicago and the City of Chicago in collaboration with the 4th
Ward Alderman have partnered for the redevelopment of the Harper Court area
known as the “Heart of Hyde Park”.

The Owners have assembled a number of prime contiguous sites in the center of
the Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago bounded roughly by Lake Park Avenue,
53rd Street, Harper Avenue, and 52nd Street, which include parcels currently
owned by the University of Chicago and the City of Chicago. This rare
assemblage of parcels amounts to a project area of approximately 2.94 acres
and provides developers with a unique opportunity to creatively reshape this area
into a cohesive, active neighborhood core.
The Owners’ objectives in the disposition or lease of the Properties are as
follows:

1. Redevelop the property through high quality, unique mixed-use
development to serve as the neighborhood commercial “core” for
Hyde Park in a manner consistent with the character of Hyde Park

2. Contract with a qualified developer who has a demonstrated track
record in urban retail/residential redevelopment, adaptive reuse,
and/or historic preservation

3. Obtain a purchase price or lease agreement consistent with the
Owners’ financial and community objectives

4. Adhere to City standards for affordable housing and for MWBE
involvement

5. Provide for community consultation on a regular basis during the
RFP process

6. Complete the redevelopment in an expeditious fashion

The Owners are requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide
development services as a Master Developer for the redevelopment of the “Heart
of Hyde Park”. This two-step process includes an initial Part One-Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) followed by a Part Two-Request for Proposals (RFP). Both
the RFQ and RFP have been outlined in this document to attempt to provide an
understanding of the full scope of work that will be required of the developers.
The Part One-RFQ process will seek responses from developers experienced in
the redevelopment of high quality, mixed-use urban neighborhood “downtowns”,
with the goal of short-listing a limited number of developers to proceed into the
Part Two-RFP phase. The RFQ responses should outline the developer’s
qualifications and experience, development team and financial capacity, and the
general concept or approach to the development project. An evaluation
committee consisting of the Alderman, representatives of the City of Chicago and
9
the University of Chicago and the Owners’ Agent will recommend a short-list of
developers to continue into the Part Two-RFP process.

During the Part Two-RFP, the Owners’ Agent will invite the short-list of
developers to submit detailed development proposals including a complete
development team, physical master plan design concepts and layouts, proposed
purchase or lease terms, tenant program and leasing, economic pro-formas,
schedules and specific performance commitments to undertake and implement
an agreed upon redevelopment scenario. Following the submittal, each shortlisted
developer will be asked to give presentations and participate in oral
interviews. The Owners will then select one or more developers with which to
begin negotiations and subsequently select a single developer to proceed into a
Redevelopment Agreement.

The selection process will be determined through unanimous vote of both
Owners, each with equal approval rights.

The Owners wish to enter into a Redevelopment Agreement with a developer
who will have the ability to purchase or lease and redevelop the sites entirely, or
in partnership with other developers. The anticipated role of the developer shall
include the detailed development of a Master Development Plan and Strategy
and the implementation and management of development activities necessary to
carry out the intent of the Master Development Plan. The developer will also
assume responsibility for the overall development process, including
entitlements, zoning approvals, market leasing and sales, financial assistance,
and overall capitalization with the cooperation of the Owners. The selected
developer will retain the obligation to meet any and all performance criteria
throughout the entire redevelopment process regardless of any partnership or
subcontracts. Completion of the entire redevelopment in a timely fashion is
critical, however the Owners recognize that a phased approach to the
development may be proposed.

All plans and proposals for the redevelopment project will be subject to the
criteria and guidelines established herein, and the ongoing review and approval
by the Owners. The Owners reserve the right, at any time and in their sole
discretion, to reject any and all responses, and/or to withdraw the RFQ/RFP
without notice.
10
B. Property Summary
Located northwest of the corner of 53rd Street and Lake Park Avenue, the Harper
Court Project Area includes approximately 2.94 acres of land area. Currently the
project site includes the Harper Court Properties and the adjacent City of
Chicago public parking lot along Lake Park Ave (see Exhibit A in the Appendix
for more information).

C. Transaction Timing
With the desire to continue the positive momentum of development on 53rd Street
and the surrounding Hyde Park area, the Owners will require that the selected
developer begin the redevelopment process immediately upon acceptance of the
redevelopment agreement. Through all phases of this process from selection,
negotiation of the agreement, closing, and project implementation, time is of the
essence.

D. Transaction Structure
The Owners will evaluate each proposed transaction structure on a case-by-case
basis. Therefore, neither a purchase nor a lease agreement is included as part
of this RFQ/RFP. The Owners are willing to entertain various real estate
transaction arrangements which facilitate the redevelopment objectives including
an outright purchase, a sale/leaseback, a land lease or a partnership based on
the developer’s proposed response and ability to positively impact objectives.

E. Due Diligence/Property Inspection
A site tour will be offered as part of the pre-proposal meeting. Additional site
tours may be requested and coordinated through the Owners’ Agent. Potential
developers may also ask the Owners’ Agent for clarification of any of the
information included in the RFQ/RFP. The Owners’ Agent will make best efforts
to satisfy any and all requests for additional information and clarification. Neither
the Owners nor the Owners’ Agent will be held responsible for incomplete or
incorrect information provided by the University of Chicago, the City of Chicago
and/or their agents or third-party contractors.
Questions or clarifications regarding the RFP can be directed to James Wilson:
jwilson@cityofchicago.org, 312-744-2379 or Tim Brangle at
“ccs@ccstudioinc.com” 312-357-1557.

F. Review and Evaluation of Proposals
Proposal submissions will be evaluated based on the following:

1. Team: A quality development team experienced in urban retail,
entertainment, residential and office development.

2. Financials: A developer’s financial capacity, track record and
commitment to implement as well as the feasibility of the proposed
development.
11
3. Design and Program: A response that incorporates a quality design,
character and program, including retail/entertainment, office and/or
residential tenants.

4. Proposed Development: A response that provides the best quality
project for the community balanced with the financial return to the Owners.
5. Community Process: A commitment to work with the community
throughout the development process to create a successful neighborhood
redevelopment project which aligns with the objectives as stated in
Section IV.

6. Complete Proposal: A response that contains all the requirements
described in Section V and is submitted by the deadline.

7. Terms: A developer whose terms most completely satisfy the Owners’
objectives, timing and legal requirements.
Proposal Deadline and Delivery: All RFQ proposals must be received by the
Owners’ Agent at the previously stated address no later than 4:00 p.m., January
19, 2009 and all RFP proposals, no later that 4:00 p.m. May 11, 2009.

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS

A. Confidentiality
This is a confidential Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals
intended solely for prospective developers’ limited use in considering whether to
submit a proposal to purchase or lease and redevelop the Harper Court Area. In
participating in this RFQ/RFP, the respondent, as a potential purchaser or
lessee, agrees not to copy or distribute any of the materials to others without the
express written approval from the Owners or the Owners’ Agent, except for its
employees, legal counselor, third-party advisors retained to assist in the
evaluation of the Properties, or prospective tenants/partners who must agree to
maintain the confidentiality of the materials. The developer agrees to not
disclose to any third-party information about the Owners, the properties, the
proposal or subsequent negotiations that was learned in the course of making or
investigating this proposal.

All developers must provide confidentiality agreements signed by each principal
and/or key member identified in the proposal. The signed confidentiality
agreements must be included with the RFQ submittal (see Exhibit M).
12
B. Real Estate Brokers
The Owners are not responsible for paying commissions or brokerage fees to
any party including brokers or finders representing the developers. If the
prospective developer uses the services of any broker or finder in connection
with its acquisition or lease of the Properties, the prospective developer shall be
solely responsible for any amounts due to such party and shall indemnify, defend
and hold the Owners harmless against any claim for a brokerage or finder’s fee
payable for such services.

C. As-Is Offering
The Owners are offering the Properties in an “as-is” condition with all of its
defects and faults. The due diligence information provided as part of this
RFQ/RFP is the most complete and best information available to the Owners. It
is the prospective developer’s responsibility to undertake a thorough independent
evaluation of the proposal, proposal materials and inspect the Properties.
The Owners shall evaluate offers with the assumption that the prospective
developer is satisfied with the real estate in its “as-is” condition. All areas and
sizes are approximate and should be verified independently by prospective
developers. The Owners will make no representations or guarantees as to the
Properties, nor give any income or expense guarantees. (See section III, E for
more information.)

D. Good Faith Deposit
A good faith deposit will be required from the selected developer only. The
required deposit amount shall be $150,000, a portion of which will be credited
back to the purchase at the time of closing. The remainder will be retained as a
performance deposit to be negotiated as part of the Redevelopment Agreement
and will be refunded upon issuance of a Certificate of Completion. The good
faith deposit must be provided in the form of a cashier’s or certified check, or a
letter of credit. The Good Faith Deposit will be held in a non-interest bearing
escrow account.

E. Contract Terms
The sale or lease and redevelopment of the Properties are subject to the Terms
and Conditions outlined in this RFQ/RFP. The Owners reserve the absolute
right, in their sole discretion, to amend from time to time these Terms and
Conditions and any other required sale documents, lease documents or closing
documents.

F. Owners’ Reservations
The Owners reserve the right to decline any and all proposals, postpone, extend
or cancel any proposal deadline, and, at their sole discretion, withdraw the
Properties from the market.
The Owners further reserve the right, in their sole and absolute discretion and
without notifying any other prospective developer, giving any other prospective
developer similar opportunity or re-offering the Properties, to negotiate with any
13
prospective developer the terms of the proposal; to overlook minor
inconsistencies or non-conformance in any proposal; to extend deadlines; and to
accept a proposal which the Owners deem is in their best interest, whether or not
it is the highest dollar amount. The Owners further reserve the right to seek
clarification of information submitted in response to this RFQ/RFP. The Terms
and Conditions are subject to such modifications as may be required by the laws
of the State of Illinois.

G. Owners’ Purchase/Lease Price Considerations
For purposes of the RFQ/RFP, the Harper Court Property and City Parking Lot
were recently appraised at approximately $7.75 million based on the leased fee
interest of the properties. This appraised value is not a minimum bid however,
developers are advised that purchase price is an important but not primary
consideration in the evaluation of the proposals to the RFQ/RFP.
The Owners are seeking proposals that balance the best quality project for
the community with an appropriate financial value to the Owners.

III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A. Overview
The site represents a key development anchor to the entire Hyde Park
neighborhood and mid-south communities and has been included in significant
recent public discussion and input. The 53rd Street Corridor (from Lake Shore
Drive to Cottage Grove) serves as an important retail street for the Hyde Park
community and adjacent neighborhoods, while also offering a variety of other
uses including office, residential and institutional. Though other streets including
55th and 57th provide retail and support services, 53rd Street remains the primary
retail corridor and has the greatest potential to evolve into the vibrant “heart” of
the area.

B. Ownership
Currently there are two ownership parcels within the Harper Court
Redevelopment Project: the Harper Court Properties, owned by the University of
Chicago and the adjacent public parking lot owned by the City of Chicago. It is
the intention of the Owners to convey the property to a single entity prior to the
purchase or lease by the awarded developer.

C. Site Description and Specifications
The “Heart of Hyde Park” project area is located between 52nd and 53rd Street
with prime frontage at the corner of 53rd and Lake Park Avenue continuing north
along Lake Park Avenue. The site is ideally accessed from Lake Shore Drive at
53rd Street.

The project site includes the two aforementioned parcels that will be conveyed to
a developer under negotiated terms of a redevelopment agreement with the
controlling entity. Additionally, adjacent public rights-of-way within the Harper
Court area may be considered in final design proposals for redevelopment
provided proper access and circulation is maintained. The project area does not
include the 53rd and Harper Ave “Theater Building”, the Columbian Apartment
building, the McDonald’s parcel located at the northeast corner of Lake Park
Avenue and 52nd Street or any other existing buildings along 53rd Street (see
Exhibit A).

• Harper Court Properties
Immediately north of 53rd Street and Harper Avenue is the retail complex
known as Harper Court, consisting of approximately 73,320 SF of site area
and recently purchased by the University of Chicago for $6.5 million. The
Owners are working with all tenants to assist with their relocation prior to
completion of the RFP process with the exception of the 5201 South Harper
Ave Building.
The 5201 South Harper Avenue building (north building @ 52nd street),
comprised of 14,300 SF net rentable square feet, is leased to Park 52, (a
15
Jerry Kleiner Restaurant) until May of 2016, with two 5-year extension
options, and the famous Checkerboard Lounge whose initial lease runs until
May of 2009, with one 5-year extension option. These leases are anticipated
to remain in place until their term expires or, at the discretion of the selected
developer, their relocation terms are met as stipulated in their leases.
Similarly, developers may wish to relocate these tenants within the
redevelopment to accelerate access to that portion of the property. With the
exception of these two leases for the 5201 S. Harper Avenue building, the
developer should assume that there will be no existing lease obligations or
occupancy in the Harper Court at the time of transfer.
A summary of the 5201 S. Harper leases is available upon request from the
Owners.

• City Parking Lot and City R.O.W.
The City Parking Lot is an undeveloped parcel consisting of approximately
54,990 SF of site area, which currently contains about 170 at grade parking
spaces accessed from Lake Park Ave. The lot serves the 53rd Street corridor
and Harper Court retail stores with short-term, metered parking and monthly
parking for business owners and employees in the area. The City-owned
parking lot currently charges minimal rates with a four-hour maximum to help
encourage retail activity and turnover. Developers will be responsible for, at a
minimum, the replacement of a comparable number of public parking spaces
and up to 400 public spaces at a maximum, at the discretion of the developer.
Funds to offset the construction of these public spaces may be made
available by the City from the TIF. These spaces shall be in addition to any
required by code for the redevelopment program, and must be priced and
operated to serve the community interest.

This lot is currently a vital amenity to Harper Court and the 53rd Street
Corridor retailers and businesses. Careful consideration should be given to
the phasing of the redevelopment to ensure the ongoing vitality of any
businesses remaining in Harper Court, as well as and neighboring businesses
throughout construction.

Existing City streets and/or alley rights-of-way that are within or adjacent to
the site can be considered in the development plan for a more contiguous site
provided that the final proposals maintain and enhance the connectivity and
proper circulation in and through the area. (See Exhibit A, Site Summary
Diagram for more information)

A portion of Harper Avenue between 53rd and 52nd Streets was vacated as
part of the 1960’s redevelopment plan. It is the goal of the Owners’ to
reconnect Harper Avenue and allow access to/from north of 52nd Street. The
final layout and configuration of that reconnection will be the responsibility of
the developers and should be integrated into the final master plan solution of
the development proposal.
16
• Other Site Opportunities
Though not included as part of this proposal, other adjacent parcels that
enhance development potential and opportunities may be included in the
redevelopment project should the developer elect to pursue them as part of a
separate process/agreement. Developers should demonstrate their control of
or ability to control parcels if included.
D. Existing Conditions and Site Preparation
The site is anticipated to be delivered to the developer cleared of all structures
except for the 5201 S. Harper Ave building. Any cleared area may either be
paved for use as temporary parking for the development or landscaped as an
open lawn area.

The selected developer will assume the cost of clearing and disposing of
additional existing buildings (5201 S. Harper), infrastructure and debris such as
paved surfaces, curbs and gutters, fill, fencing, and lighting. The selected
developer is solely responsible for bearing all costs and making all arrangements
associated with the abandonment, relocation or installation of private or public
utilities. Developers are advised to contact the Department of Transportation
(312-744-4828) and private utility companies for information concerning existing
utility lines. A copy of the City of Chicago Bureau of Underground’s plans is
included in Exhibit G.
The selected developer is also responsible for reconstructing sidewalks and
relocating street lighting standards, fire hydrants, or other facilities within the
public way if such work is necessitated by the redevelopment project. Any
construction in the public way must be made according to the City’s
specifications, and the work must be fully bonded.
The City may consider reimbursement of cost associated with site preparation
and public improvements that show clear public value and enhancement based
on eligible expenses outlined in the 53rd Street TIF.

E. Environmental and Soil Conditions
Environmental Conditions: There is no knowledge of any major existing
environmental hazards on the Harper Court site as indicated in a Phase I report
commissioned in March 2008 by the University of Chicago for the Harper Court
Property. The assessment did report evidence of possible Recognized
Environmental Conditions (REC) in three locations where prior usage included an
auto repair shop and filling stations. A summary of the Phase I Assessment for
the Harper Court Property is on the CD of appendix materials under Exhibit F.
No Phase I has been conducted for the City’s Parking Lot site.
The Owners may require the selected developer to obtain a Phase I
environmental report for the entire site prior to closing (performed in accordance
17
with ASTM 1527-05 and All Appropriate Inquiry standards). Based on the
conclusions of the Phase I report, the Owners may also require submission of a
Phase II analysis. The Department of Environment will review the reports and
recommend appropriate action, which may require enrolling the site in the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s Site Remediation Program (SRP). If the
development proposal includes residential, DOE will require that the site be
enrolled in SRP and receive a Comprehensive No Further Remediation letter
prior to occupancy.

The land will be sold “as-is” with no warranties or representations as to its
environmental condition, and it will be the responsibility of the selected developer
to complete any remediation required under the SRP. The redevelopment
agreement with the selected developer will include release and indemnification
language protecting the Owners from liability.

The cost of environmental remediation of the property, if any, will be considered
in negotiations with the selected developer.

Soil Conditions: The Owners have not performed a geotechnical analysis of the
site, and the City make no representations, warrantees or covenants as to the
suitability of the land for any purpose whatsoever.

Additional Testing: It is the responsibility of the selected developer to investigate
the environmental and geotechnical conditions of the site to its own satisfaction,
and any studies performed in addition to the Owners’ analyses will be at the
developer’s cost. The Owners will grant the selected developer a right-of-entry
for the purpose of conducting geotechnical and environmental tests. The
developer must provide the Owners with an acceptable certificate of insurance,
and the developer must agree to provide the Owners with copies of any and all
geotechnical, environmental or other test reports.

F. Neighborhood Context
Hyde Park/Kenwood is home to numerous institutions including the Museum of
Science and Industry, the University of Chicago, the University of Chicago
Medical Center, the Oriental Institute and the Robie House and is often described
as small town living in the heart of the City. Additionally, with over 45,000
residents from across a varied socioeconomic demographic, Hyde
Park/Kenwood is frequently recognized as a national model of racial diversity and
urban stability.

The 53rd Street corridor and surrounding area have been the focus of significant
study and assessment by the community, the City and the University of Chicago
including the following efforts: 2008 53rd Street Vision Workshops, 2008 Harper
Court Survey, the 2003 “Heart of Hyde Park” Development Study and the 1999
Planning Now Study for 53rd Street. A number of recent workshop efforts held by
the community, 4th Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, the University of Chicago,
the City of Chicago, the South East Chicago Commission and key local
18
businesses have helped inform a number of recommendations and guidelines
outlined in the RFP, and have helped to foster a positive development
environment in and around the Hyde Park/Kenwood community.
This strength of the Hyde Park/Kenwood area and community commitment is
evident in the following recent initiatives and investments:
• 53rd Street TIF District
The project site area lies within the 53rd Street TIF District, established in
January 2001 by the City of Chicago with the specific purpose of generating
revenues for public improvements. Specific public improvement priorities
identified to date include a public parking facility to serve the 53rd Street
shopping district, a planned expansion to the Canter Middle School on 4959
S. Blackstone Avenue and funding of various programs benefiting the 53rd
Street Corridor (Small Business Improvement Funds-SBIF, the CleanSlate
Program).
• 53rd and 55th Street Corridor Improvements
In 2002, the City of Chicago completed $2 million of streetscape improvement
projects on 53rd and 55th Streets that have created a friendlier, clean
pedestrian environment with new historic light fixtures, cleaning and painting
of all street poles, new signs, meters and trash receptacles, and additional
landscaping. The Clean Slate program begun in 2006 has been very
successful in maintaining this clean and attractive environment throughout the
Hyde Park commercial areas.
• Metra Improvements & CDOT Lake Park Corridor Master Plan
CDOT has developed a master plan for the Lake Park Corridor Project (47th
to 57th Street), which includes renovation of the 53rd and 55th Street viaducts
and embankment enhancements currently underway. Additionally, Metra
recently completed a multi-million dollar project, replacing all of the Hyde Park
stations, platforms, stairways and signage. The new stations help to promote
an attractive and accessible environment and increased use of the Metra
lines as an important link to downtown Chicago and area wide
neighborhoods.
• Checkerboard Lounge and Park 52 Restaurant: The University of
Chicago, working with longtime club owner LC Thurman, relocated the
legendary blues and jazz club, the Checkerboard Lounge, to 5201 S. Harper,
in 2005. Recently, Park 52, a new restaurant by acclaimed restaurateur Jerry
Kleiner, opened within the same building. Each tenant provides a unique
destination draw both locally and regionally, that will help catalyze the
transformation of the Hyde Park downtown.
• Treasure Island and Hyde Park Produce: The recently opened Treasure
Island Grocery store and the relocated and expanded Hyde Park Produce
19
have helped to enhance the fresh grocery offerings and bolster a positive
retail environment in Hyde Park.
• Hyde Park Bank: The Hyde Park Bank recently completed a multi-million
dollar renovation of its lobby, banking hall, and building exterior, signaling its
commitment as a key anchor to the 53rd Street corridor and the Hyde Park
area.
• Village Center Redevelopment: The adjacent “Village Center”, just north of
Harper Court on 51st and Lake Park, is currently planning for a major
redevelopment with modified zoning to allow for a new mixed-use
redevelopment. Plans include ground level retail fronting on both Lake Park
Ave and Harper Ave, with two residential structures (an 8-story mid-rise along
Lake Park and a 24 story high rise at Harper and 51st St.) atop. Structured
parking will be provided internally, and screened from view outside the
development.
• Adjacent Uses and New Developments
Many areas around Hyde Park and throughout the mid-south neighborhoods,
including Woodlawn, North Kenwood/Oakland, and Bronzeville, continue to
experience new growth and redevelopment of high quality residential
communities. While greatly enhancing the image and appeal of these
neighborhoods, these developments have also brought about a new market
of residents and business, and helped significantly in revitalizing the
connection of Hyde Park to downtown Chicago.

G. Vehicular Access and Public Transportation
Direct vehicular southbound access to the 53rd Street business district is via Lake
Shore Drive (LSD) with an exit at 53rd Street. Hyde Park is also well served with
additional southbound LSD exits at 47th, 51st and 57th streets and northbound at
57th and 47th Streets. As a primary east-west connection, 53rd Street extends
from Lake Shore Drive to Drexel Boulevard, which also provides access to the
surrounding communities. In addition, there are a number of arterial streets
(Lake Park, Woodlawn, etc.) that connect Hyde Park to the major expressways,
the surrounding neighborhoods as well as serve as primary internal routes for
vehicular travel within Hyde Park.

A number of one-way and dead-end streets exist throughout Hyde Park including
Harper Avenue. As part of this redevelopment, it is requested that Harper
Avenue should be reopened/reconnected to “thru” traffic allowing better access in
and around the surrounding area. Currently, service and delivery access to the
area is from 53rd Street, Harper Avenue, and 52nd Street with no public alleys
serving the project area. Redevelopment plans need to address and solve
service access to all new development while maintaining a quality pedestrian and
vehicular environment.
20
Metra provides direct rail service to Hyde Park with stations at 47th, 51st, 53rd,
55th-57th and 59th Streets to downtown Chicago, terminating at Randolph Street
on the north, and the southern suburbs like Flossmoor, Olympia Hills and
University Park to the south. In addition, CTA offers several bus routes to
downtown and has contracted with the University to provide free bus service for
students to connect the campus to the west, north and east portions of the
neighborhood.

H. Public Infrastructure
Major infrastructure/utility services are available at the site and located primarily
under the existing street and alley right-of-way (R.O.W.) including sewer, water,
electric, natural gas, telephone/data and cable. As part of the development of
Harper Court in the 1960’s, a portion of the Old Lake Park R.O.W. was vacated
from 53rd Street north to 52nr Street along with a number of utilities. However,
some active utilities still remain within the easement as well as other
dead/abandoned lines. (See Exhibit G for additional utility information).
If required, utility relocation to accommodate a final development plan as well as
upgrades to service/capacity necessitated by redevelopment should be explored.
The City may consider reimbursement of eligible expenses through TIF dollars.
This might include utility relocation, utility upgrades, site lighting, and streetscape
and landscape improvements. Provided funds are available, the City may
contribute towards infrastructure and utility improvements, subject to City and
Aldermanic review and approval.

I. Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances
The site is currently zoned under a planned development, PD #38, initially
approved in 1965 for the creation of Harper Court (see attached Exhibit E). It is
anticipated that the Planned Development will require updating through an
amendment to respond to and accommodate the approved final development
plans. The Department of Planning and Development will assist the chosen
developer in this process.

F.A.R.: The final development plan will most likely require an increase in the
overall density and site coverage of at Harper Court in order to achieve the
various goals of a vibrant mixed-use district. Based on similar precedent retail
districts, adjacent redevelopment efforts, as well as professional and public input,
it is suggested that the overall development density range target a Floor Area
Ratio (F.A.R.) range of 2.5 up to 5. The proper distribution of any future density
should be commensurate with the massing, scale and heights of surrounding
context, including 53rd Street corridor, Lake Park Ave corridor as well as East
Hyde Park.

Ordinances: Development proposals are subject to all applicable City of Chicago
Ordinances which may include the following: The Chicago Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, the Chicago Landscape Ordinance, the Chicago Parking Garage
21
Ordinance, the Chicago Townhouse Ordinance and the Chicago Stormwater
Management Ordinance.
For more information, see Exhibit D and/or contact DPD at City hall to obtain a
booklet that offers guidelines to these ordinances.

J. TIF Redevelopment Project Area
The property is located in the 53rd Street Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district
which was formed in 2001 primarily to raise revenue to fund public improvement
projects (see Exhibit C). Tax Increment Financing assists development projects
by using the increased property tax revenue generated by these projects. The
53rd Street TIF District was established with the primary purpose of generating
TIF revenues for public improvements to address structured parking to support
development on 53rd Street, Canter Middle School’s expansion and renovation
needs and other public improvements.

As a “public purpose TIF”, TIF assistance will be considered for proposals that
provide tangible public benefits, however, such assistance is not guaranteed.
The TIF may provide reimbursement for eligible development costs with clear
public benefit including land acquisition, site preparation, environmental
remediation, affordable housing offsets, cultural activities, preservation of a
historic building, social services, fiscal benefits, innovative environmentally
sustainable features new/improved streets and public infrastructure, professional
fees, leasing commissions and job training. New construction is not an eligible
expense except for development of low-income housing. Proposals that request
TIF assistance must demonstrate the need for such assistance.

Residential projects over 10 units that seek TIF assistance must set aside 20
percent of the units for sale to or occupancy by households with incomes no
greater than 60 percent of the Chicago Area Median Income for rental
developments, or no greater than 100 percent of the Chicago AMI for for-sale
developments. Non-residential developments or residential developments of less
than 10 units must provide tangible public benefits such as affordable housing
units, new or retained permanent jobs, new retail services in an underserved
community, cultural activities, preservation of a historic building, social services,
fiscal benefits, innovative environmentally sustainable features or other desired
benefits identified in the TIF district’s redevelopment plan.

Projects that receive TIF financing must pay prevailing wage rates for all
construction jobs, employ Chicago residents for half of all construction worker
hours, and comply with the City’s affirmative action plan for minority- and womenowned
business enterprises (MBE/WBE).

The amount of TIF assistance provided to a project is a function of the increased
tax revenue that will be generated by the project over the remaining life of the TIF
district, the demonstrated need for financial assistance, and the existence of
22
eligible development costs. Typically, TIF funding of eligible costs may not
exceed 25% of the project costs. Applications for TIF assistance are processed
by the Department of Planning and Development. The selected developer will be
expected to work with the Department in processing the TIF request.
All proposed development projects within the 53rd Street TIF District are subject
to review and approval by the 53rd Street TIF Advisory Council, a 13-person
governing board appointed by the 4th Ward Alderman, that meets publically every
other month throughout the year.
23
IV. THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

A. Development Goals and Objectives
The redevelopment of Harper Court must create a vibrant neighborhood
commercial district to serve the community and to serve as a destination due to
its distinct qualities, character and ambiance. To do so will involve the unique
blend of community and university attributes into a place with a life and vibrancy
only found in such neighborhoods. With this strong focus on creating a “sense of
place” and quality neighborhood environment, the urban and architectural design
and mix of program uses are critically important and will become a primary
consideration in the selection of the developer.

To help guide the future redevelopment of the Properties without strictly dictating,
the Owners have established the following primary objectives and parameters for
the success of the project:

• Create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood core that would serve the
diverse community, University and city-wide visitors

• Improve the image and identity of 53rd Street/Harper Court area as an
active, attractive and street-oriented commercial district

• Leverage the historic character of the neighborhood

• Attract a high quality mix of commercial uses, local and national, that
reflect the tastes, incomes, and needs of the immediate neighbors as well
as the broader communities, while assuring effective relocation strategies
for existing tenants and opening possibilities for new, locally-generated
businesses.

• Increase the daytime and nighttime population to further enhance the
commercial vitality through additional uses such as office and residential
including a mix of product type and for a range of incomes

• Feature high quality urban design and architecture that not only is
respectful of the architectural context, but also continues Hyde Park’s
traditions of uniqueness and innovation

• Establish an accessible, pedestrian-friendly environment that can
serve as a model of effective handicap accessibility through quality
streetscape, open space and design

• Provide adequate parking to serve the development and the 53rd Street
area and work with local and city officials to strengthen the transportation
options to connect with the surrounding areas and Downtown


24
These overall objectives will be used to evaluate each developer’s proposal,
based on creating a quality mixed-use development for Hyde Park.
There are a number of neighborhoods that serve as good precedents for quality
redevelopment projects including: the Delmar Loop District serving the City and
Counties of St. Louis and the Washington University markets with a unique mix
of primarily local retail, restaurant and live entertainment offerings; University City
District adjacent to University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University in West
Philadelphia which recently completed the University Square mixed-use project;
Downtown Oak Park/River Forest which has infused their downtown with a wide
variety of retail, restaurants and residential through new construction and
renovation, while providing ample public structured parking.

B. Urban Design Objectives
With prime frontage along 53rd Street, the property is a key anchor parcel and
signature development for the district as well as an important entry into the
Harper Court area. The range of density and heights of surrounding blocks in
Hyde Park and East Hyde Park should serve as good precedent for the massing,
materials and architectural detail/character with respect to the overall design and
composition of any proposed development. Additionally, the Harper Court site
offers a variety of unique urban design opportunities outlined in the following
criteria to be considered with the redevelopment of the property.

• Gateway Opportunity with new development at 53rd Street and Lake Park
Avenue corner, when paired with the current Border’s retail building forms a
significant physical and ceremonial entry into the entire Harper Court and 53rd
Street Corridor

• Circulation and Connectivity to Neighborhood: improved circulation and
access through a reopening/reconnection of Harper Ave from 52nd to 53rd as
well as a logical internal street and alley network

• Neighborhood space to provide a central gathering space or neighborhood
heart for special/seasonal events and serving as a key amenity and “address”
for many new retail/commercial opportunities

• Reinforce 53rd Street as Main Street through proper program/uses and
design (building, storefront, signage, streetscape etc), new development
should reinforce the pedestrian friendly 53rd Street retail corridor and serve as
a key anchor to and participant in the Main Street experience

• Re-establish the “Heart of Hyde Park” at this key opportunity site in Hyde
Park, Harper Court, through a quality, signature development
The project should be innovative in response to programmatic needs and be of
high quality with respect to all aspects of design including site plan, architecture,
and interior and exterior finishes.

C. Program and Use Criteria
25
As part of a quality mixed-use development, the Owners have identified a list of
preferred program uses and components to help ensure that the Proposed
Development becomes part of a vibrant neighborhood district. The program
should seek signature quality uses as described below:

• Retail and Entertainment
A creative mix of retail and entertainment tenants to achieve an active,
diverse, dynamic urban neighborhood center with increased daytime and
nighttime activity and destination appeal that builds and complements the
strong cultural destinations already present in the neighborhood
Retail/entertainment uses are encouraged at ground level in order to reinforce
an active, dynamic and pedestrian friendly urban neighborhood center.
Additionally, given the large area of the site and resulting potential for larger
footprint spaces (8,000sf to 15,000sf), new development can attract a wider
range of retailers, including national anchors as well as local, boutique
specialty retailer(s). With the objective of attracting patrons from Hyde Park
as well as the surrounding areas, a strong and varied mix of retailers will help
activate the area and create a “destination” draw for the district.
Building on the new Park 52 Restaurant, Chant Restaurant and
Checkerboard Lounge venue, other live performance and signature
restaurant uses that appeal to a wide metropolitan market and create
additional draw and nighttime appeal to the area are encouraged.
Additionally, options that increase nighttime buzz and activity, especially 24-
hour dining (other than fast food), have also been suggested for the area.

• Office and Specialty Uses
Potential for quality office space to serve the area or other specialty uses
which increase the daytime population and visitation
Options to add quality office product with “above-the-store” professional office
space and service businesses should be considered including Universityrelated
office, lodging and other business uses.

• Residential
A mix of apartment and condominium product, including a 20% affordable
housing component (for projects seeking TIF assistance), to increase the
vitality and vibrancy of the area. If possible that range should expand on the
typical income levels considered affordable and nontraditional housing types
such as live/work.

Residential opportunities, located above the ground floor, are encouraged to
increase the residential population in the district and enhance the
neighborhood vitality and vibrancy to support the retail and entertainment
Proposals may include rental and ownership units that appeal to a variety of
markets including first time buyers, current area residents, University faculty
26
and staff and graduate students. Various product types should be explored
that expand the residential offerings in the neighborhood, such as “soft loft”
units, stacked townhouses, condominiums, apartments etc. (See Exhibit I for
further details and requirements)

• Open Space and High Quality Urban Design
An important urban amenity and “address” for retailers, residents and visitors
with areas specifically designed for cultural and civic uses/programming
fronted by activated building facades and uses

• Access and Circulation
Convenient circulation to and through the area with proximate parking to
promote retail activity, adequate service access to assure open streets and a
minimum number of curb cuts that enhance pedestrian movement

• Development Range
Overall density range of 2.5 to 5 FAR with building heights commensurate to
adjacent blocks and surrounding context of Hyde Park / East Hyde Park.

• Parking
Parking sufficient to accommodate the City required standards for the
proposed development uses must be provided on site. Additional parking to
replace the lost parking of the City Lot (approx 170 spaces) as well as provide
an increase (up to 400 spaces total) to the 53rd Street Corridor public parking
is required. Options for proximate offsite location may also be considered.
TIF funding may be made available from the City’s 53rd Street TIF district for
developers to complete the public parking requirement and help offset the
cost associated with its construction. Developers are responsible for the cost
of all parking necessitated by their program uses.

D. Architectural Objectives
In conjunction with the design criteria, a number of basic architectural guidelines
have been outlined to preserve the strong architectural character and quality of
the Hyde Park community:

• High Quality Design and Materials – high quality architecture and design is
pervasive throughout Hyde Park and should serve as a benchmark for the
expectations of this redevelopment. Durable exterior wall materials,
particularly on the ground level façade, should be considered including brick,
stone, ornamental terracotta and/or stucco that continue and reinforce the
area’s masonry traditions. Use of EIFS and other non-contextual materials is
strongly discouraged. Unique and creative designs are welcome as long as
they present a high quality architecture and fit well within the neighborhood.
27
• Massing/Scale – building massing and scale should generally be appropriate
to the context of the Hyde Park area, the size and character of the various
streets and adjacent structures. Key facades along major retail areas should
be designed to respond to pedestrian scale as well as promote a vibrant and
active pedestrian environment.

• Landscape and Streetscape – the site plan must comply with the Chicago
Landscaped Ordinance. Additional trees, landscape parkways, green space,
planters, street furnishings, benches, bollards, way finding signage and other
streetscape elements are encouraged to enhance a comfortable pedestrian
environment.

• Other
Storefront Windows – maximize the transparency of ground floor, street
facing commercial facades and provide primary building entrances facing or
clearly visible from public sidewalks.
Awnings/Signage/Lighting/Streetscape – architectural features that
embellish the visual appeal of buildings as well as help create a more
pedestrian scaled, comfortable environment are encouraged. The use of a
cohesive palette of store awnings, signage, accent lighting and other
streetscape elements is encouraged.

E. Environmental Goals
The City expects that all proposals will employ, to the greatest practical extent,
techniques that lessen the environmental impact of the project and result in a
development that will be efficient to operate, require fewer resources to build and
maintain, and that will protect building occupants’ health and well being.
Identified in Exhibit J are several important techniques for enhancing the
environmental benefits of development projects.

Green: The City of Chicago has developed standards for new construction
based largely on LEED’s six categories of environmental performance. The City
encourages developers to incorporate such items as environmentally responsible
landscaping, permeable paving, optimal building orientation, low-e double-glazed
windows, fluorescent lighting, natural flooring materials, resource efficient design,
Energy-Star products and appliances, and low-emitting interior finish products.
Information concerning the City’s green guidelines can be obtained from DPD’s
Zoning Division.
See Exhibit J for additional requirements.

F. Construction Requirements
28
The selected developer must comply with the City of Chicago’s construction
requirements. During construction, at least 24 percent of qualified project costs
must be paid to City-certified Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) and at least
four percent must be paid to City-certified Woman Business Enterprises (WBEs).
In addition, Chicago residents must perform at least half of all constructionworker
hours. Prior to the start of construction, the selected developer will be
required to meet with a representative of the City’s monitoring and compliance
division to review the developer’s plan for satisfying the City’s construction hiring
and MBE/WBE goals.
29
V. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
All proposals should be responsive to the submission requirements described below.

A. Pre-submittal Conference & Site Tour
A pre-proposal meeting and site tour with the Owners’ Agent is tentatively
scheduled for December 17, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. CT, at the United Church of Hyde
Park on 53rd Street. This meeting is for qualified development teams who intend
to submit a proposal and will require pre-registration by notifying the Owners’
Agent in advance. Attendance is not mandatory but is strongly encouraged as
this is the key opportunity to raise questions regarding the RFQ/RFP and tour the
site. A confirmation notice for this meeting will be sent to all registered
developers.

Additional questions can be addressed to the James Wilson at
jwilson@cityofchicago.org or Tim Brangle at ccs@ccstudioinc.com. The Owners’
response will be returned by e-mail to all parties that have expressed interest in
the RFQ/RFP. Questions will be taken by phone only for those parties that do
not have access to e-mail. Responses to phoned-in questions will be distributed
to the other interested parties by e-mail (or by regular mail for those without email
access).

B. Two-Part Submission Process
This process incorporates a two-part submission process. In the Part One- RFQ,
the Owners’ will qualify the submittals based on the experience and financial
capacity of the development team and the general outline of the development
concept and approach. Only those respondents who are qualified in Part One
and are part of a short list will be invited to submit a detailed development
proposal for evaluation in the Part Two-RFP phase. In the RFP phase, the
Owners’ will evaluate and compare the specific development proposals, designs,
and economics to choose the response that best satisfies the goals and
objectives of the process.

C. Good Faith Deposit
A good faith deposit will be required from the selected developer only. The
required deposit amount shall be $150,000, a portion of which will be credited
back to the purchase at the time of closing. The remainder will be retained as a
performance deposit to be negotiated as part of the Redevelopment Agreement
and will be refunded upon issuance of a Certificate of Completion. The good
faith deposit must be provided in the form of a cashier’s or certified check, or a
letter of credit. The Good Faith Deposit will be held in a non-interest bearing
escrow account.

D. Submittal Format
In order to assist the expedient review of all proposals, submittals should be
prepared in an 8.5” x 11” paper format. Drawings included with the submittals
30
should generally be no larger than an 11” x 17” format. If needed, supplemental
materials in alternate formats may be allowed to describe the project in more
detail.

If the developer considers that certain portions of the submittal contain
proprietary information, such portions must be clearly marked CONFIDENTIAL.
One original and 9 copies of the proposal must be submitted. The original must
be left unbound, contain original signatures and be marked ORIGINAL on the
cover letter. Additionally, respondents must include three electronic copies of the
proposal on separate CDs.

E. Part One-RFQ Submittal Contents
The extent of the Part One-RFQ proposal materials should be sufficient to
convey the experience, capacity and approach of the development team. The
submittal should be organized in the following order and numbered sections
separated by tabs. All responses should include, but are not limited to the
following:

1. Cover Letter / Executive Summary
Include a cover letter and executive summary that highlights the key
components of the Master Developer’s submission in regards to the project;
including but not limited to the developer’s team, the approach to the
proposed development project, the developer’s experience in similar
development efforts and the benefits that the project will create for Hyde Park
and the surrounding neighborhood. An authorized representative of the
responding entity must sign the cover letter.

2. Development Team/Organization
This section must provide information regarding the developer’s team and
organizational structure including:
- A description of the development entity including identification of the
principal representatives and individuals authorized to negotiate on their
behalf
- An organizational chart that clearly illustrates the development team and
the various roles of each team member

3. Developer’s Qualifications and Related Experience
To substantiate the ability of the development entity and key team members
to successfully complete the proposed project, the following information
should be provided:
- Qualifications and experience of each entity and key staff people involved
in the project.
- Examples of development capability as evidenced through projects of
similar scope, use or complexity completed within the last 10 years.
Submitted examples should include project identification, a brief
31
description, duration, total development cost and current status. Include
the names and roles of the team and key personnel involved in the design,
implementation or management of the project as well as related
experience in which team members have worked together.
- Examples of the financial capacity of the entity as evidenced through
projects of similar scope, use or complexity completed within the last 10
years. Submitted examples should include project identification, a brief
description, current status, type of financial structure, sources of debt
financing, public financial support if any, and the size of the equity
investment.
- Provide development and financial references (name, title, entity,
telephone number and contractual relationship to developer) that can be
contacted with respect to current and past project experience.

4. Conceptual Project Overview and Approach
Provide a narrative of the development approach including:
- A statement of the general approach the developer proposes for the
development process, including the general project components,
compliance with the development objectives and design criteria as
outlined in the RFP
- Preliminary attitude toward program and uses within the development
- A description of the developer’s understanding of the physical form of the
community and the uses, and how the proposed project will be consistent
with the surrounding neighborhood and redevelopment goals.
- A preliminary draft timetable of the design and development process with
major milestones and a target completion date

5. Legal Action History
Provide a listing and brief description of all legal actions for the past three
years in which the firm has been:
- A debtor in bankruptcy
- A defendant in a lawsuit for deficient performance under a contract or
failure to comply with City or State laws or regulations
- A defendant in an administrative action for deficient performance on a
project or failure to comply with City and State laws or regulations
- A defendant in any criminal action

6. Confidentiality Agreements
The developer must provide confidentiality agreements signed by each
principal, project manager, and key team member identified in the proposal.
The signed confidentiality agreements must be received with the Part One
RFQ submission. (See Exhibit K)

7. Addenda
Use this section to present additional information such as letters of
recommendation, letters of interest from prospective lenders or tenants,
32
additional information concerning the development team, and other
information that supports the Part One-RFQ submission.

F. Part Two-RFP Submittal Contents
Only those development teams selected as part of the shortlist process will be
invited to submit a Part Two-RFP response. The extent of the proposal materials
should be sufficient to convey the overall quality and character of the
development as well as the financial strategy/backing to ensure its successful
implementation. The submittal should be organized in the following order and
numbered sections separated by tabs. All responses should include, but not be
limited to, the following:
1. Cover Letter and Executive Summary
Include a cover letter and executive summary that briefly describes the
developer’s approach to the proposed development project, indicates the
purchase/lease price, describes the developer’s team and experience in
similar development efforts and identifies the benefits that the project will
create for Hyde Park and the surrounding neighborhood. An authorized
representative of the responding entity must sign the cover letter.
2. Developer’s Team and Organization
This section must provide detail that supplements the developer’s Part One-
RFQ submission:
- A description and/or chart that clearly identifies the team, organization and
role of each team member.
- A statement describing the legal form of the development entity, including
identification of the principal representatives and individuals authorized to
negotiate on its behalf. Provide a description of the contractual structure
of the developer (joint venture, partnership, etc), ownership percentages
and duties. The Owners’ may require copies of agreements,
organizational documents, or letters of intent before selecting the winning
proposal.
3. Proposed Development Narrative
Provide a narrative of the development and approach including:
- A statement of the general approach the developer proposes for the
development process, including the general project components,
compliance with the development objectives and design criteria as
outlined in the RFP
- A detailed summary of the program (retail/entertainment, office, residential
etc) and pricing targets, identification of potential retail tenants with
preliminary Letters of Intent or other evidence of ability to secure such
commitments, as applicable
33
- A summary of the proposed zoning for the project and any entitlements
required for the development
- A redevelopment timetable consisting of an overall project schedule that
includes all phases, milestones and a target completion date
4. Master Development Plan and Conceptual Design
Provide graphic materials sufficient to convey the overall
conceptual/schematic character and quality of the proposed development and
compliance with the development objectives and design criteria. This may
include the following:
- Conceptual site plan
- Typical floor plans
- Site/building sections
- Renderings/sketches of the development that illustrate the character and
quality of the project, urban form/massing, building materials and
response to the context
5. Financial Capability
Each developer must submit a preliminary financial plan. The Owners
reserve the right to request from the developer and/or each team member a
complete set of current audited financial statements or any other financial
documentation. The following information should be provided:
- A narrative overview of the financial structure of the proposal; the
developer must identify the sources of equity investment and the sources
and terms of lender financing; include information concerning the
marketing plan and pricing structure, and describe any proposed leases; if
the property will be a rental development, describe the development
team’s management experience and plan; if TIF funds are requested,
describe purpose, public benefit and amount
- Development budget
- Pro-forma cash flow projection for rental projects or sales revenue
projections for for-sale projects; projected equity investor returns must be
provided
- Summary financial statement of development entity (company annual
reports or similar financial balance sheet or bank reference)
6. Affirmative Action Plan
The developer must commit to implement an affirmative action program
designed to promote equal opportunity in every aspect of procurement of
goods and services. The affirmative action program shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
- A statement of commitment to achieving the minimum participation in
contract expenditures of 24% for MBEs and 4% for WBEs.
34
- A written plan outlining a strategy for utilization of women and minority
business enterprises in the proposed development. The plan must include
designation of sufficient staff to administer the program and a description
of the procedures that will be instituted to assure achievement of the
program’s goals.
7. Economic Impact
The developer must provide a discussion of the economic impact of the
proposed project including fiscal impacts, construction and permanent
employment, and potential economic impact on the surrounding community.
The developer must provide an estimate of any new or retained permanent
jobs that will be generated by the project and include an analysis in support of
these claims. An estimate of the number of temporary construction jobs
expected to be generated by the project must also be provided.
8. Special Conditions
This section is reserved for a description of any special conditions that the
developer may offer to, or request from, the Owners.
9. Legal Action History
Provide a listing and brief description of all legal actions for the past three
years in which the firm (or any team member) has been: a debtor in
bankruptcy; or a defendant in a lawsuit for deficient performance under a
contract, or failure to comply with City or State laws or regulations; or a
defendant in an administrative action for deficient performance on a project,
or failure to comply with City or State laws or regulations; or a defendant in
any criminal action.
10. Offer to Purchase/Lease
Submit an Offer to Purchase/Lease that is signed and dated by the authorized
representative of the developer outlining the proposed deal structure, financial
terms and conditions. The offer should describe any special conditions,
requirements or contingencies that the developer may offer to or request from
the Owners.
11. Addenda
Use this section to present additional information concerning the project, the
development team, the proposed retail tenant(s) and any other information
that supports the proposal.

35
G. Submittal Address and Deadline
The original, 10 copies of the proposal and electronic copies must be delivered to
the location below in a sealed envelope no later that 4:00 p.m., TBD. The
original should be included inside as a separate sealed envelope marked
ORIGINAL. The developer is solely responsible for ensuring timely delivery and
any proposal received after the deadline will be returned unopened.
Submit the Part One-RFQ and Part Two-RFP proposals to the following address
of the Owners’ agent:
The City of Chicago
Department of Planning and Development
121 N. LaSalle Street Room 1000
Chicago, IL 6060
Attention: James Wilson
The outside of the submittal should be labeled as follows by phase:
Request for (Qualifications or Proposals)
For the Purchase or Lease and Redevelopment of the
Harper Court Properties and City Lot
Developer: [Name of Developer]

H. Questions/Clarifications
Any questions and/or clarifications sought throughout the RFQ/RFP process
should be addressed to the Owner’s agent, James Wilson
j.wilson@cityofchicago.org or Tim Brangle at ccs@ccstudioinc.com.

VI. DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES
The developer’s responsibilities include:
A. Redevelopment Agreement
Upon selection of a preferred developer, the Owners and developer will negotiate
a Redevelopment Agreement for the purchase/lease and redevelopment of the
Harper Court Properties. The Redevelopment Agreement will finalize terms for
the land purchase/lease, performance criteria, project schedule and
implementation. During this period, the developer will be asked to revisit and
modify the Proposed Development to address any recommendations from the
review and selection process. All subsequent plans and designs for the
development will require the review and approval of the Owners.
36
B. Development Approvals
The developer will be responsible for the overall development process, including
the procurement of entitlements, zoning approval and all necessary permits,
applications and approvals required for the successful implementation of the
Proposed Development.
The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development and the Alderman
will cooperate with the selected developer in securing required entitlements for
the final approved development.
C. Community Planning Process
As part of the RFP process, the shortlisted developers may be and the selected
developer will be required to give a public presentation(s) to the 53rd Street TIF
Advisory Council, its committees and its working groups prior to final
negotiations. The developer will present its proposed development concepts and
designs to the community as part of the overall planning process.
D. MWBE Commitment and Affordable Housing Requirement
Developers must commit to implementing an affirmative action plan that complies
with City requirements for equal opportunity in every aspect of procurement of
goods and services.
In addition to the MWBE goals, any residential program must comply with a 20%
affordable housing component as required by the City of Chicago Affordable
Housing Ordinance. Additional information is available in the Appendix, Exhibit I.

VII. SELECTION PROCESS
A. Evaluation and Approval
The Owners will review the Part One-RFQ submittals in accordance with the
evaluation criteria described below. The Owners will evaluate the submittals to
establish the qualifications of the development entity and the general conformity
of the development concept to the major goals and objectives of the RFP. In
order to be selected to proceed to Part Two-RFP, the developer must
demonstrate that the development team has the experience and financial ability
to successfully complete the proposed conceptual development. Developers
may be asked to provide clarification, revision and/or additional information as
part of this review.
The Owners will review the Part Two-RFP submittals in accordance with the
evaluation criteria described below. From this review, they may recommend a
shortlist of Part Two developers who may be asked to answer the Owners’
questions, provide additional information, or make an oral presentation. The
Owners will evaluate and compare the proposals and development teams and
select the response that best satisfies the goals and objectives of the RFP.
The Owners may recommend that negotiations be commenced with a selected
37
development team. As part of these negotiations, the selected proposal may be
amended or revised in order to best align with the Owners’ interests. The
selected proposal will require presentation to the 53rd Street TIF Advisory
Council and any city processes as needed (Community Development
Commission (CDC), City Council, etc if required). A redevelopment agreement
will be drafted with the controlling entity and may require necessary approvals as
per that entity. Following approvals with the controlling entity, the redevelopment
agreement will be executed and the property conveyed as described in the
agreement.

B. RFQ Selection Criteria
The Request for Qualifications will be evaluated based on all of the following
criteria:
• Team:
– Developer Team and Qualifications
– Key Personnel (including MWBE participation)
• Related Experience:
– Comparable projects, experience and expertise
– References for projects
• Financials:
– Financial Ability and Information
• Conceptual Development Approach:
– A proposed Development approach to achieve or exceed the desired
goals of the Development Framework

C. RFP Selection Criteria
The Request for Proposal will be evaluated based on all of the following criteria:
• Team:
– Developer Team, Qualifications and Related Experience
– Key Personnel (including MWBE participation)
– References
• Financials:
– Financial Ability and Information
– Financial Parameters, Structure and Proforma (purchase/lease price, deal
structure, development budget, commitment of funds, etc) for the project
• Design and Program:
– A Proposed Development that achieves or exceeds the desired goals of
the Development Framework
– Overall program including quality of retail tenants and other desired uses
outlined in the RFP
• Proposed Development Framework:
– Creativity of approach and development plan
– Master development schedule that demonstrates ability to implement the
project expeditiously
38
– Demonstrated ability to secure key retail tenants
– Commitment to performance criteria for the duration of the redevelopment
project
• Community Process:
– Demonstrated commitment to work with the community throughout the
development process to educate
D. Selection Process and Schedule
December 8, 2008 RFQ/RFP Issued – RFQ/P is issued to qualified
developers
December 17, 2008 Pre-proposal Meeting & Site Tour– A pre-submittal
meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m.: pre-registration is
required by contacting the Owners’ Agent.
January 19, 2009 RFQ Submittal Deadline – RFQ responses must be
submitted to the Owners’ Agent by 4 p.m.
January/February 2009 Owners’ Evaluation and Developer Discussions – The
Owners’ Agent may invite a number of developers to
give presentations to the Owners of their Proposed
Development in an oral interview process.
February 16, 2009 RFP Shortlist Selection and Commencement
May 11, 2009 RFP Submittal Deadline - RFP responses must be
submitted to the Owners’ Agent by 4 p.m.
May/July 2009 Owner Evaluation, Developer Discussion and
Proposal Refinement
July/August 2009 Community Presentation of Select Development
Proposals
August/Sept 2009 Owners’ Preferred Developer Selection Process –
The Owners will conduct internal review to select a
preferred developer.
Late September 2009 Community Presentation of Developer and Proposed
Development – The Owner will work with the selected
developer to facilitate required Owner presentations
and public presentation to the community of the
Proposed Development.
End of Year 2009 Execution of Purchase/Lease Redevelopment
Agreement – The Owners and the selected developer
will negotiate the purchase/lease redevelopment
agreement and immediately proceed with the
development of the project.
39
VIII. APPENDIX *
Exhibit A: Site Maps and Plans
Exhibit B: Description of Development Area and Context
Exhibit C: 53rd Street TIF District Information
Exhibit D: City of Chicago Ordinance Summary
Exhibit E: Existing Site/Zoning Information
Exhibit F: Phase I Environmental Summary– Harper Court Properties
Exhibit G: Bureau of Underground Summary
Exhibit H: Hyde Park Planning Studies
Exhibit I: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Exhibit J: Environmental Requirements
Exhibit K: Confidentiality Agreement
* NOTE--Appendix materials are available by disk through the City of Chicago
Department of Planning and Development or by download at the City of Chicago,
Department of Planning and Development website

Top
___________________________________

EXHIBIT B Neighborhood History and Facts

Hyde Park/Kenwood began in the 1850’s as a premier lakefront respite community with its abundant parks and
grand residential offerings. Extending from Lake Michigan to Cottage Grove Avenue, Hyde Park/Kenwood is
situated in a historic setting eight miles south of downtown Chicago. In 1893, the area hosted the World’s
Columbian Exposition, one of the grandest and most revered world fairs of all time, which established Chicago as
a world-class city and gave the area many significant features including the current Museum of Science and
Industry building, the Midway Plaissance and lakefront parks. Around the same time, the University of Chicago
was founded, establishing a key anchor for the neighborhood and setting an intellectual character and
prominence that remains today.

The intellectual, cultural and artistic appeal of the neighborhood has always proved attractive to residents and
visitors and is home to many renowned institutions including:
· University of Chicago
· Museum of Science and Industry, one of the most popular tourist attraction’s in the Midwest with over 1.5
million visits annually
· University of Chicago Hospitals, repeatedly cited by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best hospitals in
the U.S.
· Six theological seminaries
· A collection of cultural institutions including DuSable Museum of African American History, Hyde Park Art
Center, Little Black Pearl Workshop, Oriental Institute, Court Theater, Muntu Dance Theater, and the Robie
House.

Hyde Park/Kenwood is often described as small town living in the heart of the City and is frequently recognized as
a national model of racial diversity and urban stability. Characteristics of its population include:
· 44,700 residents – 2003 estimate, with steady growth since 1990
· Over 25% of households have household incomes over $75,000 (a 112% increase since 1990)
· $62,697 – Estimated 2003 Average Household Income, a 52% increase since 1990
· $90,578 - Estimated 2003 Average Family Household Income
· People of color comprise about half the neighborhood
· Highly educated – close to 40% hold a master’s, professional or doctorate degree and 22% hold bachelor’s
degree
· 11,150 University of Chicago graduate and undergraduate students
· The University of Chicago and the University of Chicago Hospitals employ close to 13,000 persons and
together are the largest employer on the south side of Chicago
· More than 60% of the University’s faculty and their families live in Hyde Park/Kenwood, as well as a vast
majority of University students.

Today, the Hyde Park/Kenwood area continues to thrive as a diverse urban neighborhood with a unique
community pride and strong city appeal. Ranked in 2000 and 2003 by Money Magazine as one of the best places
to live in the U.S. and cited as a “top neighborhood”, Hyde Park/Kenwood continues to experience steady growth
and property appreciation. Housing values have increased at rates higher than the average for Chicago, and are
comparable to north side lakefront neighborhoods including Lakeview, Near North Side and Lincoln Park. In
addition, the community has many excellent choices for education with some of the best public and private
schools in Chicago including Ray and Murray Elementary Schools, Kenwood Academy High School, University of
Chicago Laboratory Schools and the Ancona School.
Top

Exhibit D

The following land-use ordinances may also affect development of the property. Booklets that
offer guidelines to these ordinances can be obtained from DPD in Room 1003 City Hall.
The Chicago Landscape Ordinance establishes standards for on-site and parkway plantings.
Landscaping permits are obtained as part of the normal process of building and zoning permit
applications except that a separate permit is required from the Bureau of Forestry for actions
regarding trees in the public way.

The Chicago Parking Garage Ordinance establishes urban design standards for free-standing
and accessory parking structures. An application for parking garage review must be submitted
to the Department of Planning and Development before applying for a building permit.
The Chicago Townhouse Ordinance establishes special zoning requirements for townhouse
developments (two or more single family dwellings that share party walls). Townhouse permits
are obtained as part of the zoning process.

Stormwater Management Ordinance

The Stormwater Management Ordinance takes affect on January 1, 2008. Regulated
developments include projects that disturb over 15,000 square feet of land or projects that will
create an at-grade impervious surface of 7,500 square feet or more. The developer of such
projects will be required to prepare a stormwater management plan for submittal to the City for
review. The plan must include rate control (by using the City’s calculations guideline or by
using Chicago vortex restrictors) and volume control (by using stormwater BMPs to capture up
to 0.5 inch of rain from impervious areas or by achieving a 15 percent reduction in impervious
surfaces from an established baseline).

More information concerning the stormwater management ordinance can be obtained from the
Chicago Center for Green Technology at 312-746-9642 (445 N. Sacramento Blvd.) or from
CGGT’s website at www.cityofchicago.org/environment/GreenTech. CGGT also offers
training courses and workshops concerning the new ordinance, and the website includes a
‘Green Infrastructure Calculator’ to help developers assess stormwater best management
practices.

Landmark Designation

The property is not a landmark nor is it located in a landmark district.

Top

_________________________________

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Site:
Harper Court
5201 to 5225 South Harper Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60615
Prepared For:
Lake Park Associates
1501 South Indiana Avenue, Unit 1
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Attn: Mr. Mark Chrisman
Report Issue Date: March 27, 2008

/signatures imaged/

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................1
2.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................2
2.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................2
2.2 Detailed Scope of Service .............................................................................................2
2.3 Significant Assumptions ................................................................................................2
2.4 Limitations and Exceptions............................................................................................2
2.5 Special Terms and Conditions ......................................................................................2
2.6 User Reliance................................................................................................................3
3.0 Site Description...............................................................................................................4
3.1 Location and Legal Description .....................................................................................4
3.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ......................................................................4
3.3 Current Use and Ownership..........................................................................................4
3.4 Site Infrastructure..........................................................................................................4
3.5 Current Uses of Adjacent Properties.............................................................................5
4.0 User Provided Information .............................................................................................6
4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations.....................................................6
4.3 Specialized Information .................................................................................................6
4.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .......................................6
4.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues..............................................................6
4.6 Owner, Property Manager, and/or Occupant Information .............................................6
4.7 Reasons for Performing this Phase I ESA ....................................................................7
4.8 Previous Environmental Reports...................................................................................7
5.0 Records Review ..............................................................................................................8
5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources.....................................................................8
5.1.1 Federal and State Regulatory Agencies................................................................8
5.1.2 Regulatory Database Inquiry.................................................................................8
5.1.3 EDR Orphan Sites...............................................................................................11
5.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources..................................................................11
5.2.1 Local Government Agencies ...............................................................................11
5.3 Physical Setting Sources.............................................................................................12
5.3.1 Surface Water Characteristics.............................................................................12
5.3.2 Subsurface Geological Characteristics................................................................12
5.3.3 Groundwater Characteristics...............................................................................12
5.4 Historical Use Information ...........................................................................................13
5.4.1 Aerial Photographs..............................................................................................13
5.4.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps .............................................................................14
5.4.3 Historic Maps.......................................................................................................15
5.4.4 Polk City Directory for 1928.................................................................................15
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions .........................................................................17
6.0 Site Reconnaissance ....................................................................................................17
6.2 General Site Setting ....................................................................................................17
6.3 Exterior Observations..................................................................................................17
6.4 Interior Observations ...................................................................................................18
6.5 Hazardous Substances and/or Chemical Storage ......................................................18
6.6 Above Ground and Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines .................................18
6.6.1 On-Site ................................................................................................................18
6.7 Suspected Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)-Containing Equipment..........................18
7.0 Interviews......................................................................................................................20
7.1 Interviews with the Site Managers...............................................................................20
7.2 Interview with Site Workers .........................................................................................20
7.3 Interviews with Local Government Officials.................................................................20
8.0 Findings .........................................................................................................................21
9.0 Opinion..........................................................................................................................22
9.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions .......................................................................22
9.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions........................................................22
9.3 De Minimis Conditions.................................................................................................22
9.4 Business Risk..............................................................................................................22
9.3 Data Gaps ...................................................................................................................22
10.0 Conclusions..................................................................................................................24
11.0 Deviations .....................................................................................................................25
12.0 Additional Services......................................................................................................26
13.0 References....................................................................................................................27
14.0 Signature and Qualifications of the Environmental Professional ..........................28
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Location Map
Appendix B Detailed Site Map
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Interview Documentation
Appendix E Regulatory Records Documentation
E-1 – Freedom of Information Act Requests and Responses
E-2 – Environmental Database Report
Appendix F Historical Research Documentation
F-1 – Aerial Photographs
F-2 – Sanborn Maps
Appendix G Qualifications of the Environmental Professionals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the Carnow, Conibear & Assoc., Ltd. (Carnow Conibear)
investigation associated with a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Harper
Court property located at 5201 to 5225 South Harper Avenue, Chicago, Illinois (the subject site).
The Phase I ESA consisted of a visual site inspection, a site historical review, a review of public
record documents, and a review of government agency records. The Phase I ESA was
conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E 1527-
05 (Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process).
Canow Conibear conducted a visual inspection of the subject site on March 20, 2008. The
subject site consists of an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 73,344 square feet. Four
2-story concrete and masonry buildings occupy the subject site along with a brick-paved court
yard, small landscaped areas, and a paved parking lot. The subject site is bounded on the
north by East 52nd Street, beyond which are residential properties and a filling station to the
northeast; on the east by an alley beyond which are a fast food establishment and a City
parking lot; on the south by an alley, beyond which are commercial and professional
businesses; and on the west by residential and commercial properties.
The investigation indicated that the subject site has historically been developed as a commercial
and residential neighborhood since at least 1925. The current site buildings were constructed
between 1965 and 1967. The investigation indicated that the site buildings have always been
leased as commercial storefronts, restaurants, and offices.
The subject site was not listed in the environmental database consulted for this ESA. Based
upon the current information, this assessment has revealed the following evidence of
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject site:
• An auto repair shop reportedly was present on the current 5211 South Harper Avenue
portion of the subject site in 1950. Petroleum products, additives, solvents, and other
chemicals are commonly used in such establishments. Carnow Conibear believes that
this represents a REC.
• A filling station was reportedly present on the property east adjacent to the 5201 South
Harper Avenue portion of the subject site from at least 1975 to 1989. Given that there is
little information available about this facility, Carnow Conibear believes that this
represents a REC.
• In September 2000 and August 2002, LUST incidents occurred at a filling station located
less than 1/8 mile to the northeast of the subject site. The releases were reportedly
cleaned up, with NFR letters issued for the incidents. Carnow Conibear believes that the
LUST incidents at this filling station represent a historic REC to the subject site.
The Executive Summary is intended to provide a brief summary of the findings of the recent site
investigation. The entire report must be read in order to fully understand the findings and
potential environmental concerns associated with the subject site; therefore, the Executive
Summary should not be substituted in lieu of reading the entire report.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose
Lake Park Associates retained Carnow Conibear to perform a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) of the 73,344-square-foot property located at 5201 to 5225 South Harper
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to obtain and evaluate
information related to any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that might be present on
the subject site.

2.2 Detailed Scope of Service
The Phase I ESA was performed for the subject site in accordance with the current American
Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05 (Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process). The following activities
were conducted:
?? A visual investigation of the subject site;
?? Interview with the site representative Ms. Leslie Cole-Morgan (site Executive Director);
?? Interview with the ESA user Mr. Mark Chrisman (User Questionnaire);
?? Interview with the local fire department;
?? Review of historic topographic and floodplain maps;
?? Review of United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps;
?? Review of aerial photographs;
?? Review of Sanborn maps;
?? Review of accessible government/public records;
?? Review of local, state and federal databases; and
?? A limited inspection of the adjacent properties from vantage points accessible to the
public.

2.3 Significant Assumptions
With respect to the ASTM standard, there were no significant assumptions associated with this
Phase I ESA.

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions
With respect to the ASTM standard, there were limitations associated with this Phase I ESA.
Not all of the responses to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been received
from all of the government agencies within the time frame for issuance of this report to the
client.

2.5 Special Terms and Conditions
With respect to the ASTM standard, there were no special terms or conditions involved in this
Phase I ESA.

2.6 User Reliance
No environmental site assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for
RECs in connection with a property. This Phase I ESA, in accordance to ASTM Standard E
1527-05, is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs
for the subject site, given reasonable limits in time and cost. Based solely upon the work
performed in connection with this Phase I ESA Report, which has taken into account commonly
known and reasonably ascertainable information, and subject to all conditions and exceptions
set forth in this report, the following entity can rely on this report when assessing environmental
conditions pertaining to the subject site:
Lake Park Associates
1501 South Indiana, Unit 1
Chicago, Illinois 60605
No other party may rely on this Phase I ESA without the prior express written consent of
Conow Conibear.

3.0 Site Description

3.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject site is located in the Hyde Park neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, Illinois.
Addresses of the four buildings at the subject site are 5201, 5210, 5211, and 5225 South Harper
Avenue. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map Jackson
Park, Illinois dated 1963 (photo-revised 1972), the subject site is located in Section 11,
Township 38 North, Range 14 East of the Third Principal Meridian in Cook County, Illinois.

Appendix A presents the location of the subject site.
The site’s legal description (provided by Ms. Leslie Cole-Morgan) is as follows:
The west 29.86 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and the west 29.86 feet of Lot 3 (except the South 20 feet
thereof), Lots 16, 17, and 18 (except the west 14 feet of the north 90 feet of said lots 17 and 18,
taken as a tract) all in Block 20 in Hyde Park, being a subdivision of the East ½ of the Southeast
¼ and the East ½ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 11, T. 38 North, Range 14 East of the 3rd
Principal Meridian.

Lots 3 and 4 and the south ½ of Lot 2 in Block 21 in Hyde Park Subdivision, aforesaid.
The part of South Harper Avenue lying north of the south line of Lot 4 in Block 21 in said Hyde
Park Subdivision, extended east, and lying south of a line that is 90 feet south of and parallel to
the south line of East 52nd Street, extended.

Lot 11 (except the west 14 feet thereof and except the south 4.94 feet of said Lot 11), Lots 12,
13, 14, and 15 (except the west 14 feet of said Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15), Lot 16 (except the west
14 feet of the south ½ of said Lot 16) and all of Lots 17 and 18, all in Block 2 in Waite’s
Subdivision of Lot 4 to 15, inclusive, in Block 20 of Hyde Park Subdivision aforesaid.

3.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The nearly level subject site is located in a mixed commercial/residential area of Chicago,
Illinois. Appendix B depicts the Site Plan and adjacent properties.

3.3 Current Use and Ownership
The four buildings of the subject site, owned by the Harper Court Foundation, are occupied by
shops, restaurants, and offices, with some vacancies. Each building has two stories with no
basement. Photographs of the subject site can be viewed in Appendix C.

3.4 Site Infrastructure
Access to the subject site is from East 52nd Street on the north, Lake Park Avenue on the east,
and East 53rd Street on the south. The subject site buildings located at 5210, 5211, and 5225
South Harper Avenue are concrete structures, while the building located at 5201 South Harper
Avenue is constructed of brick. All four structures are constructed on concrete slabs that are 3 to 4
below the surrounding grade. Total area of the four buildings is approximately 43,000 square
feet. There is a brick-paved courtyard on the east side of 5211 South Harper Avenue, an alley
running north-south along the east side of the site, and a site parking lot adjacent on the east to
5210 South Harper Avenue.

[Tables not reconstructed.] The following utility service companies are currently available at the subject site:
Utilities
Natural gas Peoples Gas
Electricity Commonwealth Edison
Water City of Chicago
Storm and sanitary sewers City of Chicago
Waste removal Allied Waste Services
Restaurant grease removal Mahony Environmental

3.5 Current Uses of Adjacent Properties
Adjacent properties with contiguous property lines were visually inspected from vantage points
on the subject site. The subject site is bordered by the following properties:
Adjacent Property
North East 52nd Street, beyond which are residential
properties and a filling station to the northeast.
East
A fast food restaurant with parking east of 5201
South Harper Avenue and a large City parking
lot east of the rest of the site.
West Residential properties that front on South
Blackstone Avenue.
South An east-west alley, beyond which are various
commercial properties and offices.

4.0 User Provided Information
ASTM Standard E 1527-05 requires the user of a Phase I ESA to provide the environmental
professional with any information that could be deemed useful in identifying RECs. The user of
this Phase I ESA is Mr. Mark Chrisman of Lake Park Associates. The User Questionnaire,
which was completed by Mr. Chrisman and returned to Carnow Conibear on March 25, 2008,
can be reviewed in Appendix D.

4.1 Title Records

A real title search including any deeds, easements, leases, restrictions, and covenants is
sometimes included in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments to help identify past site uses
and potential environmental concerns. The user of this Phase I ESA, Mr. Mark Chrisman, did
not provide Carnow Conibear with title search documents. However, a title search is not
required by ASTM if other historical sources of information provide the necessary information.
Carnow Conibear believes that the data collected during the Phase I ESA provided sufficient
information about the site.

4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
This investigation, including information obtained from the User Questionnaire completed by Mr.
Chrisman, has revealed no record of environmental liens or activity use limitations specific to
the subject site.

4.3 Specialized Information
Mr. Chrisman indicated that he has no specialized information pertaining to the subject site.

4.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
Mr. Chrisman indicated that he has no other information pertaining to the subject site.

4.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
Mr. Chrisman indicated that the purchase price has not been adjusted for environmental
reasons.

4.6 Owner, Property Manager, and/or Occupant Information
Carnow Conibear was able to interview Ms. Leslie Cole-Morgan, Executive Director and site
manager for approximately 6 years, with 30 years experience in the neighborhood, for
information concerning the subject site (see Section 7.1).

4.7 Reasons for Performing this Phase I ESA
Mr. Chrisman indicated that the Phase I ESA is being performed as a part of his due diligence
prior to purchasing the property.

4.8 Previous Environmental Reports
No previous environmental reports were made available to Carnow Conibear prior to the
issuance of this report.

5.0 Records Review

5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
This section presents the results of the state and federal government agency Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) responses and the government agency database search that was
performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) in accordance with the ASTM
standard.

5.1.1 Federal and State Regulatory Agencies
Carnow Conibear submitted FOIA requests to state and federal agencies in an effort to obtain
information regarding the subject site and adjacent properties. Copies of the state and federal
FOIA requests and responses can be found in Appendix E-1. The following agencies were
contacted:

?? United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Carnow Conibear is currently awaiting a response from this agency.
?? Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

Springfield, Illinois
Carnow Conibear received a response from the Bureau of Land indicating that they have
no information on the subject site. The Bureaux of Air and Water and the Office of
Emergency Response have not yet responded.

?? Illinois Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM)
Springfield, Illinois
Carnow Conibear’s search of the OSFM’s State of Illinois UST list on compact disk
format (received by Carnow Conibear in August of 2007) revealed no records of USTs
on the subject site.

5.1.2 Regulatory Database Inquiry
Carnow Conibear retained EDR to conduct a search of available environmental databases for
the site and surrounding properties. The databases were searched according to ASTM
standards, with supplemental environmental information also provided. The descriptions,
sources, telephone numbers, and government version dates for each of the databases are
provided in Appendix E-2. Carnow Conibear used the approximate center of the subject site to
specify the site location as the “target property”.

Database [table not converted]

2008
Harper Court
5201 to 5225 South Harper Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60615
Page 9
Database ASTM Search
Distance
National Priority List (NPL)
The federal National Priority List is a federal list of abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial action under the Superfund
program.
1.0 Mile
Delisted National Priority List (D-NPL)
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Plan (NCP)
establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where
no further response is appropriate.
0.5 Mile
Comprehensive Environmental Response & Liability Information System
(CERCLIS)
The federally maintained Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System is a compilation of past and
current sites that the IEPA has investigated pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). It also
includes abandoned or uncontrolled waste sites identified under the federal
Superfund Program.
0.5 Mile
CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)
Sites which have been investigated and subsequently delisted from the federal
CERCLIS are designated as No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) sites.
0.5 Mile
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Information
RCRA Information is EPA’s comprehensive information system, including
information on selective information on sites which treat, store or dispose (TSD)
hazardous wastes. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs)
generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of
acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity
generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of
acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle,
treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDs treat, store or dispose of waste.
Subject Site or
Adjacent
Property
* 0.5 Mile if TSD
Federal/State Engineering/Institutional Controls Registries
These federal and state registries list sites with engineering or institutional
controls associated with them. Engineering controls include various forms of
caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway
elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect
human health. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as
groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions,
and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to
contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are often required as a part of
institutional controls.
Subject Site
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
Emergency Response Notification System, maintained by the federal
government, records and stores information on reported releases of oil and
hazardous substances.
Subject Site

Category List (CAT)
Illinois EPA information listing notice of response action, NPL, pre/proposed NPL,
completed remedial action, SRP, federal facilities, and cleanup started and or
cleanup completed sites.
1.0 Mile
State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS)
State hazardous waste sites records are the state's equivalent to the federal
CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS
list. Priority sites planned for clean-up using state funds are identifiable along
with sites where cleanup will be paid by potentially responsible parties.
0.5 Mile
Solid Waste Facilities / Landfill Sites (SWF/LF)
Solid Waste Facilities / Landfill Sites records typically contain an inventory of solid
waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. These may be active or
inactive facilities, or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA subtitle D Section
4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites.
0.5 Mile
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Registered USTs, regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA and must be registered with
the state department responsible for administering the UST program. In Illinois
the UST registry is maintained by the Office of the State Fire Marshall.
Subject Site or
Adjacent Property
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank records contain an inventory of LUST
incidents reported to the state.
0.5 Mile
Site Remediation Program (SRP)
The Illinois Site Remediation Program (SRP) database includes properties that
are enrolled in the state's voluntary clean-up program.
0.5 Mile
Brownfields
The Illinois Municipal Brownfields Redevelopment Grant Program offers grants
worth a maximum of $240,000 each to municipalities to assist in site investigation
activities, development cleanup objectives, and performance of cleanup activities.
Brownfields area abandoned or underused industrial and/or commercial
properties that are contaminated (or thought to be contaminated) and have an
active potential for redevelopment.
0.5 Mile
Note: The report also includes additional databases that are not required to be searched by ASTM standards. These
additional database results are reviewed for potential environmental affect on the subject site.
The subject site was not listed on the EDR database. Federal listings identified in the EDR
report within the ASTM minimum search distances from the site include: one CORRACTS
listing, six RCRA-SQG listings, two RCRA-CESQG listings, and one FUDS listing. State and
local listings identified in the EDR report within the ASTM minimum search distances from the
site include: 12 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) incidents; 14 registered underground
storage tanks (UST); in site in the Voluntary Cleanup Program; and one dry cleaner. The
following table summarizes sites that could possibly affect the environmental conditions at the
subject site. The complete EDR report is presented in Appendix E-2.

Distance from
Site
Owner/Address Listed
Database
Comments
ENE
< 1/8 mile
Shell Oil Company
Shell Station 1544-34
5200 S. Lake Park Avenue
Chicago IL 60615
RCRA-SQG
FINDS
LUST
UST
1000614487
ILD984848002
ILEPA ID 0316395001
Incident 901776
IEMA date 6/28/90
Unleaded gasoline
2 tanks, size not reported
NFA/NFR Letter: 9/21/06
Incident 20021147
IEMA date 8/12/02
NFA/NFR Letter: 9/21/06
Facility ID: 2007030

7 gasoline tanks, 4,000 – 6,000 gallons
– all removed
1 used oil tank, 500 gallons –removed
1 used oil tank, 550 gallons –exempt
ENE
< 1/8 mile
BP Products North America
5130 South Lake Park
Chicago, IL 60615
LUST IEPA ID: 0316185080
Incident Number: 20001861
IEMA Date: 9/29/00
NFA/NFR Letter: 6/26/01
NOTE: CCA has interpreted the EDR Report to eliminate most duplicate addresses and misspellings reported to the governmental agencies.
* Asterisks indicate supplemental databases that are not required to be searched by ASTM standards.
Examination of other properties listed within ASTM search distances from the subject site
determined that they would not affect the subject site due to distance from the subject site.
Specific information regarding all of the listings within the ASTM minimum search distances can
be found in the complete EDR report, which is included as Appendix E-2.
5.1.3 EDR Orphan Sites
There were two orphan sites (listed sites that could not be mapped due to poor or inadequate
address information) identified during the database search. Further investigation determined
that one of these sites is several city blocks from the subject site. Due to the distance, Carnow
Conibear believes that this site/listing does not represent an environmental concern to the
subject site at this time. The other orphan site listing contains insufficient information to locate
the property. The complete orphan site list is included in Appendix E-2.

5.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources

5.2.1 Local Government Agencies
Carnow Conibear submitted FOIA requests to local agencies in an effort to obtain information
regarding the subject site. Copies of the state and local requests and responses can be found
in Appendix E-1. The following agencies were contacted

• City of Chicago Department of Environment, Chicago, Illinois
Carnow Conibear is currently awaiting a response from this agency.
• City of Chicago Department of Buildings, Chicago, Illinois
Carnow Conibear received a response from this agency which contains no records of an
environmental nature.

5.3 Physical Setting Sources

5.3.1 Surface Water Characteristics
The topography of the subject site and adjacent properties is relatively level, with no significant
natural relief features. The nearest significant water body is Lake Michigan approximately 2,200
feet east of the subject site. According to the USGS 7.5-minute topographic map of the Jackson
Park, Illinois quadrangle (revised 1998) accessed by EDR, the elevation in the vicinity of the
subject site is approximately 592 feet above mean sea level.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the subject site,
Community-Panel Number 170074 0090B (June 1, 1981), shows that the subject site is
designated as Zone C, area of minimal flooding. No standing bodies of water nor wetland
vegetation was observed during the recent site inspection.
5.3.2 Subsurface Geological Characteristics

CCA retained EDR to conduct a search of available geological information for the subject site
and surrounding properties. A listing of EDR’s geological sources can be reviewed in Appendix
E-2. The rock stratigraphic unit surrounding the subject site is Paleozoic Era, Silurian System,
Middle Silurian (Niagoaran) Series; the geologic age identification is of the Stratified Sequence
category.
Carnow Conibear reviewed Plate 1 of the ISGS Circular, Potential for Contamination of Shallow
Aquifers in Illinois, indicating that the regional geologic materials underlying the subject site are
designated as “B1,” which is described as sand and gravel less than 20 feet thick over relatively
impermeable till or bedrock (Berg, ct al. 1984).

5.3.3 Groundwater Characteristics
No groundwater investigation data for the subject site or immediately adjacent properties was
available. Therefore, Carnow Conibear was unable to determine groundwater flow direction for
the subject site.

Two primary aquifers are present in the Chicago metropolitan region. These aquifers are the
shallow dolomite aquifer (which includes the bedrock strata directly underlying the
unconsolidated glacial sediments) and the deep Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer (which consists
predominately of sandstone). The latter unit is isolated from the shallow dolomite aquifer by up
to 250 feet of shale. Discontinuous glacial aquifers are also present in the Chicago region in the
form of lacustrine sands (Dolton Member of the Equality Formation) and outwash sand and
gravel of the Henry and Wedron Formations (Willman, 1971). The City of Chicago has a
groundwater ordinance that prohibits the installation and use of potable water supply wells.

5.4 Historical Use Information
5.4.1 Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs of the subject site and surrounding areas were reviewed for the
years 1952, 1963, 1972, 1988, 1998, and 2002 (see Appendix F-1). Carnow Conibear
reviewed the aerial photographs for indications of the previous uses of the subject site and
surrounding areas in an effort to identify potential environmental concerns. The following is a
summary of the aerial photographs reviewed:
Aerial
Photograph
Date
Subject Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1952 There are several buildings on
the site.
The site area is completely developed with urban
buildings.
1963 No significant changes are
apparent from 1952 aerial
photograph.
No significant changes are apparent from 1952 aerial
photograph.
1972 Site appears to be configured as
it presently is, with four buildings
and a court yard.
Lake Park Avenue has been relocated. There is now
a large parking lot east adjacent to the subject site.
1988 No significant changes are
apparent from 1972 aerial
photograph.
There is at least one structure in the north part of the
east adjacent parking lot that was not visible in the
1972 aerial photograph.
1998 No significant changes apparent
from 1988 aerial photograph.
No significant changes apparent from 1988 aerial
photograph.
2002 No significant changes apparent
from 1998 aerial photograph.
No significant changes apparent from 1988 aerial
photograph

5.4.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Map coverage was available for review for the years 1925, 1950, 1975, 1988, 1989,
and 1992 (see Appendix F-2).
Sanborn
Map
Date
Subject Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1925 West side of Harper Avenue:
Multi-story residential buildings, some
with ground-floor shops.
East side of Harper Avenue:
Multi-story residential buildings, most
with garages, a few with ground-floor
shops.
West adjacent:
Multi-story residential buildings, some with
ground-floor shops.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
Multi-story residential buildings.
East adjacent:
Multi-story residential buildings, some with
ground-floor shops south, steam laundry east.
South of site across alley: Multi-story residential
buildings and ground-floor shops, several
garages.
South of western portion of site:
Residential properties and a school.
1950 West side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1925 map.
East side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1925 map except that there is now
an auto repair shop in the rear of 5215
South Harper (part of the present 5211
South Harper portion of the subject
site).
West adjacent:
No significant changes are apparent from the
1925 map.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
No significant changes apparent from the 1925
map.
East adjacent:
No significant changes apparent from the 1925
map except that steam laundry appears to be
gone.
South of site across alley: No significant
changes apparent from the 1925 map.
1975 West side of Harper Avenue:
Residential buildings appear to have
been replaced by the current buildings
of Harper Court.
East side of Harper Avenue:
Residential buildings appear to have
been replaced by the current buildings
of Harper Court.
West adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1950 map.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
No significant changes apparent from the 1950
Map except that a filling station is located at
1514 East 52nd Street.
East adjacent: There is now a filling station east
adjacent to 5201 South Harper and a large
parking lot south of the filling station property.
South of site across alley: Some structures
south of 5225 South Harper are no longer
present.

Sanborn
Map
Date
Subject Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1988 West side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1975 map.
East side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1975 map.
West adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1975 map.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
No significant changes apparent from the 1975
map.
East adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1975 map.
South of site across alley: A 4-car garage
occupies the area that was vacant on the 1975
map.
1989 West side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1988 map.
East side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1988 map.
West adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1988 map.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
No significant changes apparent from the 1988
map.
East adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1988 map.
South of site across alley: No significant
changes apparent from the 1988 map.
1992 West side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1989 map.
East side of Harper Avenue:
No significant changes apparent from
the 1989 map.
West adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the 1989 map.
North across 52nd Street from 5201 S. Harper:
No significant changes apparent from the 1989
map.
East adjacent: No significant changes apparent
from the1989 map.
South of site across alley: No significant
changes apparent from the 1989 map.
Review of the Sanborn maps did not reveal any potential environment concerns with regard to
the subject site except for the existence of an auto repair shop in the rear of 5215 South Harper
in 1950 and a filling station east adjacent to 5201 South Harper from 1975 through 1989
(approximate locations are shown in Appendix B).
5.4.3 Historic Maps
According to the USGS topographic map of Jackson Park, Illinois the subject site is located in
Section 11, Township 38 North, Range 14 East of the Third Principal Meridian in Cook County,
Illinois. Carnow Conibear reviewed the historical USGS map for the year 1963 (photorevised
1972) looking for any indication of past uses of the subject site. The 1963 map shows the
subject site neighborhood to lie within a pink tinted area, identifying it as a high density urban
environment, with only public and historical buildings individually represented. A partial copy of
this USGS map can be viewed in Appendix A.
5.4.4 Polk City Directory for 1928
A search of an electronic copy of the 1928 Polk City Directory for Chicago revealed no
indications of possible hazardous sites or RECs on the subject site or adjacent properties.

6.0 Site Reconaissance

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
A visual inspection was conducted on the subject site on March 20, 2008 by Larry Lueck of
Carnow Conibear. Conditions during the visit were favorable, with sunny weather. Carnow
Conibear first inspected the buildings with Ms. Cole-Morgan, the site manager, then toured the
outdoor portions of the subject site and adjacent properties. Photographs taken during the
reconnaissance can be viewed in Appendix C.

6.2 General Site Setting
The subject site is located in a mixed commercial/residential area of Hyde Park in Chicago,
Illinois. The site is bounded by East 52nd Street on the north, a fast food establishment and a
city-owned parking lot on the east, an alley and commercial buildings on the south, and
residential properties on the west. Appendix B depicts the Site Plan and adjacent properties.

6.3 Exterior Observation

The subject site is developed with four 2-story buildings of concrete and masonry on slabs with
no basements, a brick-paved courtyard, and an asphalt-paved parking lot. The following table
summarizes the exterior site observations:
Site Observations
Lot Size 73,344 square feet
Shape of Parcel(s) irregular
Number of Buildings on Site 4
Exterior Improvements brick-paved courtyard and asphalt-paved parking lot
Pools of Liquid none
Drums, Hazardous Material or
Petroleum/Unidentified Substance Containers
none
Stained Soil or Pavement none
Stressed Vegetation none
Wells none
Solid Waste or Fill Material none
Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Surface Water, Waste
Water
none
Septic Systems none
Railroad Tracks none
Pipeline(s) none

6.4 Interior Observations
The subject site buildings are currently occupied by various shops, restaurants, and
professional offices, with some vacancies (see details of site manager interview documentation
in Appendix D). Each building consists of two floors the lower of which is garden style a few
feet below surrounding grade. The second floors of three buildings have vaulted ceilings, while
open lofts are built into the second floor of the fourth building. Heating is provided by natural
gas units, many of which also provide the air conditioning. Several units have window air
conditioners in place of the combined HVACs.

6.5 Hazardous Substances and/or Chemical Storage
On May 19, 1980, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published, in the Federal
Register, the first phase of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1980 RCRA
Laws. RCRA defines a hazardous waste as a solid waste that may cause or significantly
contribute to serious illness or death, or that poses a substantial threat to human health or the
environment when improperly managed. No hazardous waste was observed on the subject
site. There is small cleaning establishment across South Harper Avenue southwest from the
5225 building with a “Dry Cleaning” sign in the window. However, Ms. Cole-Morgan, the
manager of the facility, stated to Carnow Conibear that no dry cleaning is done on the premises.
6.6 Above Ground and Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines

6.6.1 On-Site
No above ground or underground storage tanks, or evidence for same, were observed on the
subject site

6.6.2 Adjacent Properties
No evidence of the presence of UST, ASTs, or pipelines was observed on the immediately
adjacent portions of the bordering properties from publicly accessible vantage points. Review of
IEPA’s Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Tracking (L.I.T.) database found LUST
incidents 20021147, 901776, and 20001861 from September 2000 and August 2002 listed for
the northeast adjacent filling station property, across East 52nd Street. The extent of the soil
contamination related to these incidents is unknown at this time. The facility is currently active.

6.7 Suspected Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)-Containing Equipment
The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 mandates the regulation of electrical
transformers containing toxic substances known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Prior to
1976, PCB transformers were manufactured and placed into service by various electric utility
companies without government regulation. Regulations promulgated under TSCA require that
transformers containing PCBs be marked as such. Subsequently, a PCB Ban Rule was enacted
in 1979 to eliminate the use of PCBs in transformers. There are unmarked, locked metal
cabinets which Carnow Conibear believes to contain transformers located immediately east of
the southeast corner of the 5211 building and immediately north of the 5201 building. Both
cabinets appeared to be in good condition with no signs of leaking. There are several
transformers on two utility poles located near the southeast corner of the site parking lot east of
the 5210 building but these also appeared to be in good condition with no leaking. All of these
transformers probably belong to Commonwealth Edison.

7.0 Interviews

7.1 Interviews with the Site Managers
Carnow Conibear was informed that the subject site is currently owned by the Harper Court
Foundation. Carnow Conibear conducted an in-person interview with Ms. Leslie Cole-Morgan
the Executive Director of the Foundation. Ms. Cole-Morgan has approximately 6 years
experience as site manager and approximately 30 years living in the neighborhood. Ms. Cole-
Morgan stated that Harper Court was constructed very much in its present configuration
between 1965 and 1967 as part of a large-scale urban renewal of the neighborhood and has
undergone no significant renovation since then. There is no hydraulic equipment on the subject
site. Ms. Cole-Morgan indicated that there were no flooding or leaking issues in the building,
although water from a flash flood once damaged some of the lower level floors because it
temporarily overwhelmed the drainage system. No hazardous waste is generated or stored on
site. Ms. Cole-Morgan explained that there is a subsurface lift system under a hatch in the
sidewalk off the southwest corner of the 5201 building that brings waste water and sewage up to
the level of the city sewer system.

7.2 Interview with Site Workers
No interviews were conducted with site workers.

7.3 Interviews with Local Government Officials
The Chicago Fire Department does not allow its personnel to give interviews to members of the
public without specific permission from headquarters. Therefore, on March 25, 2008, Carnow,
Conibear sent an email request for information on the Harper Court site to Mr. Larry Langford,
Chicago Fire Department Director of Public Information and Media Affairs. Mr. Langford’s email
response suggested that it would be better for Carnow, Conibear to contact the Chicago
Department of Environment with requests for environmental information (see Section 5.2.1). A
copy of both emails is provided in Appendix D.

8.0 Findings

Based on the findings of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, within the scope of this
investigation and pursuant to the requirements of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05, the
following findings are presented below:
• An auto repair shop reportedly was present on the current 5211 South Harper Avenue
portion of the subject site in 1950. Petroleum products, additives, solvents, and other
chemicals are commonly used in such establishments. Carnow Conibear believes that
this represents a REC.
• A filling station was reportedly present on the property east adjacent to the 5201 South
Harper Avenue portion of the subject site from at least 1975 to 1989. Given that there is
little information available about this facility, Carnow Conibear believes that this
represents a REC.
• In September 2000 and August 2002, leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
incidents occurred at a filling station located less than 1/8 mile to the northeast of the
subject site. Although the releases were reportedly cleaned up (NFR letters were issued
for these incidents), Carnow Conibear believes that the nearby presence of this facility
represents a REC to the subject site.

9.0 Opinion

Based on the findings of this Phase I ESA, within the scope of this investigation and pursuant to
the requirements of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05, this section presents Carnow
Conibear’s opinion of environmental impacts on the subject site.

9.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
?? An auto repair shop was present on the current 5211 South Harper Avenue portion of
the subject site in 1950. Petroleum products, additives, solvents, and other chemicals
are commonly used in such establishments. Carnow Conibear believes that this
represents a REC to the subject property.

?? A filling station was present on the property east adjacent to the 5201 South Harper
Avenue portion of the subject site from at least 1975 to 1989. Given that there is little
information available about this facility, Carnow Conibear believes that this represents a
REC to the subject property.

9.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
• In September 2000 and August 2002, LUST incidents occurred at a filling station
located less than 1/8 mile to the northeast of the subject site. The releases were
reportedly cleaned up, with NFR letters issued for the incidents. Carnow Conibear
believes that the LUST incidents at this filling station represent a historic REC to the
subject site.

9.3 De Minimis Conditions
• Several transformers located on the perimeter of the subject site could potentially
contain PCBs. A leak would result in a hazardous condition.

9.4 Business Risk
• None

9.3 Data Gaps
When conducting a Phase I ESA investigation, an environmental professionals’ ability to identify
RECs is sometimes limited due to data gaps. Data gaps are not inherently significant, but can
be substantive to a report if other information and/or professional experience raise reasonable
concerns regarding the data gap.
One common type of data gap is data failure – the inability to find sources to adequately identify
the historical uses of the subject site. ASTM 1527-05 requires that historical uses of a property
be identified in five year intervals back to 1940 or the property’s first development, whichever is
earlier, as long as the information is reasonably ascertainable. If specific use of the property
appears unchanged over a period of longer than five years, then research of the use of the
property during intervening years is not required.
This investigation has identified sources of information from 1925, 1928, 1950, 1952, 1963,
1972, 1975, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1998, and 2002. This information suggests that the site has
been developed with urban structures since at least 1925. The current subject site buildings
were constructed between 1965 and 1967 and have been leased in units for stores, restaurants
and commercial office space since they opened.
Carnow Conibear believes based on professional experience, adequate historical information on
the site was obtained, and the data failure does not represent a significant data gap to the
study.

10.0 Conclusion

Carnow Conibear has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, in conformance
with the scope and limitations of the current ASTM Practice E 1527, of the site located at 5201
to 5225 South Harper Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (the subject site). Any exceptions to, or
deletions from, the practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has
revealed the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the
subject site:
• An auto repair shop was present on the current 5211 South Harper Avenue portion of
the subject site in 1950. Petroleum products, additives, solvents, and other chemicals
are commonly used in such establishments. Carnow Conibear believes that this
represents a historical REC.
• A filling station was present on the property east adjacent to the 5201 South Harper
Avenue portion of the subject site from at least 1975 to 1989. Given that there is little
information available about this facility, Carnow Conibear believes that this represents a
historical REC.
• In September 2000 and August 2002, LUST incidents occurred at a filling station located
less than 1/8 mile to the northeast of the subject site. The releases were reportedly
cleaned up, with NFR letters issued for the incidents. Carnow Conibear believes that the
LUST incidents at this filling station represent a historic REC to the subject site.
Carnow Conibear has applied prevailing industry standards and reasonable judgment and effort
within the scope of work outlined in Carnow Conibear’s proposal, while conducting the Phase I
ESA. The standards, judgment, and effort used by Carnow Conibear personnel to investigate,
assess, and determine the presence of potential environmental hazards and liabilities
associated with the site are consistent with the requirements outlined in the current ASTM
Standards No. E1527. Carnow Conibear makes no warranty, express or implied, that the
findings and interpretations in this report are a complete representation of the environmental
hazards and liabilities, associated with the site. There may be unrecorded information or
documentation from previous owners or tenants that is unattainable and may be proprietary,
legally protected, or unavailable through government regulatory services.

11.0 Deviations

Carnow Conibear has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, in conformance
with the scope and limitations of the current ASTM Practice E 1527, of the site located at 5201
to 5225 South Harper Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the
practice are described in Section 2.2 of this report. No other significant deviations are noted
with this report.

The Phase I ESA was performed for the subject site in accordance with the current American
Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05 (Standard Practice for Environmental
Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process).
CCA recommends, at a minimum, that a Phase II Environmental Assessment with subsurface
soil sampling be conducted on portions of the subject site to investigate the possibility of
impacts from the current and historical RECs identified in this Phase I ESA.

13.0 References

Referenced Documents
1. ASTM Standard E 1527-05, 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Jackson Park, Illinois [map]. 1:24,000. 15 Minute Series. 1963 (photo-revised 1972); U.S.
Geological Survey. Washington D.C.
3. Berg, Richard C., Kempton, John C., and Cartwright, Keros. 1984 Potential for
Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign,
IL.
4. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. April 14, 2006. Environmental Protection
Agency. May 11, 2006. < http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/rcra.htm>.
5. Underground Storage Tank System, Illinois Facility List [Compact Disk]. August 2007.
Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshall. Springfield, Illinois.
6. Polk’s Chicago (Illinois) Numerical and Avenue Directory 1928-1929; R.L. Polk & Co.,
Publishers, Chicago, Illinois, 1928.

14.0 Signature and Qualifications of the Environment [image form]

_________________________________________

 

Exhibit J

Environmental Goals: The City expects that all proposals will employ, to the greatest
practical extent, techniques that lessen the environmental impact of the project and result in a
development that will be efficient to operate, require fewer resources to build and maintain,
and that will protect building occupants’ health and well-being. Identified below are several
important techniques for enhancing the environmental benefits of development projects.

· Roof Systems: Environmentally responsible roof systems protect our valuable
water resources and help to mitigate the urban heat-island effect. Green roofs
provide the greatest benefits but hard-surfaced roof systems with a high
reflectivity rating, such as Energy Star-rated roof surfaces, also help the
environment.

A green roof system typically consists of a waterproof and root-repellant
membrane, a drainage system, filter cloth, a lightweight growing medium and
maintenance-free vegetation. Green roof systems may be modular or each
component may be installed separately.

· LEED Certification: The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System™ provides
national standards for the development of high performance, environmentally
sustainable buildings. Properties submitted for LEED certification are rated
according to environmental performance in six categories: sustainable sites,
water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor
environmental quality, and i nnovation and design process.

Properties are awarded points for meeting or exceeding the requirements of each
category. Those properties that meet the minimum requirements receive LEED
Certification; properties that exceed the minimum requirements can achieve
Silver, Gold, or Platinum ratings. The U.S. Green Building Council’s website is
www.usgbc.org.

· Green Residential Guidelines: The City of Chicago has developed standards for
residential construction based largely on LEED’s six categories of environmental
performance. The City encourages residential developers to incorporate such
items as environmentally responsible landscaping, permeable paving, optimal
building orientation, low-e double-glazed windows, flourescent lighting, natural
flooring materials, resource efficient design, Energy-Star products and
appliances, and low-emitting interior finish products. Information concerning the
City’s green residential guidelines can be obtained from DPD’s Zoning Division,
Room 1003 City Hall.

· Energy Star: The Energy Star program is administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The program helps to protect the
environment by promoting superior energy efficiency. The program rates the
energy efficiency of building products, equipment, and appliances as well as the
overall energy efficiency of newly constructed residential buildings of less than
four stories. Products and buildings that achieve a high level of efficiency are
awarded an Energy Star label. The EPA’s Energy Star website is
www.energystar.gov.

· Stormwater Management: The City of Chicago promotes better management of
stormwater runoff to protect our water resources, and the minimal requirements
for stormwater management are prescribed in the Stormwater Management
Ordinance described previously. All responses to the RFP are encouraged to
exceed these minimum requirements by employing such features as natural
landscaping, permeable paving, drainage swales, and naturalized detention
basins. A guide to stormwater best management practices can be obtained from
DPD in Room 1003 City Hall or can be downloaded from the CGGT website (see
below).

Proposals that incorporate the preceding environmental strategies will be given
favorable consideration. DPD has also established the following minimum requirements
for proposals that request public assistance (such as land price write-down, TIF or other
financial assistance) or that seek Planned Development (PD) status. [delete following
uses not included in this RFP]

· Residential developments with four or more dwelling units where 20 percent or
fewer of the units are affordable : If the proposal requests a land price write-down,
TIF assistance, or Department of Housing (DOH) financial assistance then it
must include a green roof system on at least 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces
and achieve Energy Star building certification, or alternatively only achieve LEED
certification. If the proposal requests other forms of public assistance, then a
green roof system on at least 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces and Energy Star
building certification are required. If the proposal only seeks PD status, then a
green roof on at least 25 percent of all flat roof surfaces is required. In all cases,
whenever a green roof covers less than 100 percent of flat roof surfaces, then
the remainder must be covered by an Energy Star-rated surface.

· Residential developments with less than four dwelling units or developments that
include townhouses or single family houses, and where 20 percent or fewer of
the units are affordable: All such proposals that seek a land price write-down, TIF
assistance or DOH financial assistance are required to achieve either Energy
Star or LEED building certification.

· Residential developments of any type or size where more than 20 percent of the
units are affordable: All such proposals are required to satisfy DOH’s
environmental requirements (DPD can provide this information).

· Industrial: Industrial projects that request a land price write-down, TIF assistance,
or Empowerment Zone grants have two options: incorporate an Energy Starrated
roof surface and achieve LEED certification, or install a green roof on 10
percent of all flat roof surfaces. Industrial projects that request other forms of
public assistance (6b assessment reduction, industrial revenue bond, or
Enterprise Zone Facility bond) are required to provide a green roof system on at
least 10 percent of all flat roof surfaces or an Energy Star-rated roof surface on
100 percent of all flat roof surfaces. In all cases, whenever a green roof covers
less than 100 percent of all flat roof surfaces, then the remainder must be
covered by an Energy Star-rated surface.

· Retail developments with a building footprint of 10,000 square feet or larger:
Proposals that request a land price write-down, TIF assistance, or Empowerment
Zone grant have two options: include a green roof on 75 percent of all flat roof
surfaces or include a green roof on 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces and
achieve LEED certification. Proposals that seek o ther forms of public assistance
have the following two options: include a green roof over 50 percent of all flat roof
surfaces or include a green roof on 25 percent of all flat roof surfaces and
achieve LEED certification. Proposals that only seek PD status are required to
provide a green roof on at least 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces. In all cases,
whenever a green roof covers less than 100 percent of all flat roof surfaces, then
the remainder must be covered by an Energy Star-rated surface. Big box retail
developments with a building footprint larger than 100,000 square feet must
reduce the site’s stormwater run-off coefficient.

· Retail developments with a building footprint smaller than 10,000 square feet:
Proposals that request a land price write-down, TIF assistance, or Empowerment
Zone grant have two options: include a green roof on 25 percent of all flat roof
surfaces or achieve LEED certification. The portion of flat roof surfaces not
employing a green roof system must be covered by an Energy Star-rated
surface. Proposals that seek other forms of public assistance or PD status must
provide an Energy Star-rated roof surface over the entire roof.

· Office buildings 80 feet or higher: Proposals that request a land write -down, TIF
assistance, or Empowerment Zone grant must provide a green roof on 100
percent of all flat roof surfaces. Proposals that seek other forms of public
assistance must provide a green roof on 75 percent of all flat roof surfaces.
Proposals that only seek PD status are required to provide a green roof on at
least 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces. Whenever a green roof covers less than
100 percent of all flat roof surfaces, then the remainder must be covered by an
Energy Star-rated surface.

· Office buildings lower than 80 feet: Proposals that request a land write-down,
TIF assistance or Empowerment Zone grant have two options: provide a green
roof on 50 percent of all flat roof surfaces and an Energy Star-rated roof on the
remainder, or provide an Energy Star-rated roof on the entire roof surface and
achieve LEED certification. Proposals that seek other forms of public assistance
must provide an Energy Star-rated roof on the entire roof surface.

· Community Centers and Schools: All proposals that seek PD status have two
options: provide a green roof on 25 percent of all flat roof surfaces, or provide a
green roof on 10 percent of all flat roof surfaces and achieve LEED certification.
Whenever a green roof covers less than 100 percent of all flat roof surfaces, then
the remainder must be covered by an Energy Star-rated surface.

[Delete the following two paragraphs if the RFP property is vacant land.]
The preceding environmental goals have been largely developed for new
construction projects. Rehabilitation projects will be expected to achieve these
goals to the greatest practical extent, and the Department of Planning and
Development will advise the selected applicant on the means to achieve
meaningful environmental benefits.

A green roof structural feasibility report will be required for rehabilitation projects,
and where feasible the same green roof requirements will be applied. If the
feasibility report indicates that the existing roof system cannot support a green
surface, DPD will offer alternative techniques for reducing the heat-island effect
and controlling runoff.

The department encourages all applicants to contact the Chicago Center for
Green Technology at 312-746-9642 (445 N. Sacramento Blvd.) or visit CGGT’s
website at www.cityofchicago.org/environment/GreenTech. CGGT offers a
wealth of information concerning green building techniques and products, LEED
Certification, the Energy Star program, and stormwater management.

Top